$^ 


PY  I 


^ 


(^'''M 


<:::?  PTfTTSrnF.TOW-     TJ".     J.  -vO 


Presented  by  Mr.  Samuel  Agnew  of  Philadelphia,  Pa. 


Agncw  Coll.  on  Baptism,  No. 


y-oj^^i^,^/ 


^j^^y^ 


W-^^j:  yfdiL 


% 


THE 


UNITARIAN  BAPTIST 


OF  THE  ROBINSON  SCHOOL 


EXPOSED; 

In  papers  collateral  to  a  Discussion  of  Christian  Baptism, 
and  its  effects  upon  civil  and  religious  society  as  shewn 
in  the  Scriptuies,  and  in  the  history  of  the  Church, 
in  opposition  to  the  views  of 

MR.  ALEXANDER  CAMPBELL, 

As  expressed  in  a  seven  days^  debate  with  the  Author,  at  PPash- 
inglon  Kentucky,  October  1824,  and  in  his  spurious  publication 
of  that  debate,  and  of  a  previous  one  of  two  days  with  the  Rev. 
John  WkhK:.R  of  Ohio,  and  in  opposition  to  the  views  of  the 
celebrated  Mb..   Robinson,  and  other  Baptist  Authors. 


Pastor  of  the  Eighth  Presbyterian  Church,  Philadelphia,  and  Author 
of  a  "Discussion  of  Universalism." 


PHILADELPHIA:  PRINTED   BY   JOHN   TOVWC. 


1826. 


PREFACE. 


In  the  autumn  of  1819,  the  author  settled  in  Augusta,  Ken- 
tucky, as  the  Pastor  of  a  Presbyterian  Church  in  that  poor  and 
obscure,  but  delightful  and  healthful  village.  As  soon  as  he 
began  to  lecture  on  the  Gospel  according  to  Matthew,  the  Bap- 
tists in  the  neighbourhood,  who,  as  jet,  appeared  friendly,  began 
to  predict  that  he  would  take  little  or  no  notice  of  the  3d  Chap- 
ter. It  is  now  confessed  with  shame,  that  after  a  severe  internal 
3t:uggle,  he  had  partially  determined  to  follow  this  unfaithful 
course,  although  he  had  kept  his  intention  to  himself.  His  re- 
solution was  occasioned  not  by  any  doubt  of  the  propriety  of 
our  views  or  practice  in  relation  to  Baptism,  but  by  a  too  anxious 
desire  to  live  in  peace,  and  to  shew  his  affection  to  Baptist  chris- 
tians to  whom  he  was  very  tenderly  attached.  Just  before  the 
3d  Chapter  came  under  review.  Major  Fee,  a  man  of  very  ad- 
vanced age,  and  an  elder  of  the  Church,  hearing  the  pro>hetic 
rumour  which  tlie  Baptist  friends  had  set  in  motion,  communi- 
cated it  to  the  author,  accompanied  with  a  remonstrance  against 
a  policy  so  unmanly  and  so  unininisterial.  This  occasioned  him. 
ti)  give  our  Saviour's  baptism  a  prayerful  discussion  of  a  fevv 
minutes,  qualified  with  many  sincere  expressions  of  love  and 
esteem  for  Baptist  christians.  Mr.  Vaughn,  a  Baptist  minister 
settled  iii  the  same  place,  acknowledged  openly  from  the  same 
pulpit,  on  the  ne  ct  sabbath-day  that  the  Preacher  had  said  noth- 
ing which  could  wound  the  feelings  of  him  or  his  bretheren  in 
the  least  degree.  This  was  exceedingly  gratifying  to  the  Preach- 
er's heart ;  for  although  he  had  not  an  exalted  opinion  of  Mr. 
Vaughn  in  any  respect,  he  thought  that  union  in  a  good  cause,  if 
it  could  be  attained,  promised  far  more  usefulness  than  unneces- 
sary and  unprofitable  dissention.  Had  Mr.  Vaughn's  subsequent 
conduct  been  consistent  with  the  above  candid  declaration,  the 
present  work  would  probably  never  have  been  imposed  upon  the 
public  attention.  But  bad  counsel,  disappointed  ambition,  and 
a  mistaken  view  of  the  motives  of  his  friend's  conduct,  induc<"d 
him  soon  to  assume  a  very  different  attitude.  There  is  lea- 
son  to  believe  that  Mr.  Vaughn's  opinion  of  the  Author  bef  >re 
and  after  the  lecture  on  the  Baptism  of  John,  very  much  resem- 
bled the  opinion  which  the  frogs  entertained  of  King  Log  before 
and  after  their  acquaintance  with  him.  They  first  feared  and 
honoured  him.  bt-*  ause  thev  thought  him  dangerous  ;  they  after- 
ward despised  and  insulted  him,  because  they  found  him  harm- 


less.  Being  destitute  of  that  generosity  which  can  appreciate 
disinterested  motives,  he  afterward  attributed  forbearance  to 
feebleness,  and  publicly  scofted  from  the  pulpit,  at  the  Author's 
expressions  of  tenderness,  as  an  indication  of  his  timidity  and 
the  weakness  of  his  cause ;  assuring  the  people  that  he  in  reply, 
had  no  notion  of  touching  the  subject  delicately  like  a  man 
treading  on  glass.  He  discovered  too  late  that  a  more  tender 
walk  would  have  been  much  to  his  advantage. 

After  Mr.  Vaughn's  most  mortifying  failure  in  an  attack  as 
unprovoked  as  it  was  scurrilous  and  unfeeling,  he  and  his  warm- 
est adherents  were  much  refreshed  with  Mr.  Campbell's  publi- 
cation of  the  debate  between  hira  and  Mr.  Walker,  in  Mount 
Pleasant,  Ohio,  June,  1820.  This  remarkable  man  is  not  sa- 
tisfied with  a  friendly  investigation  of  the  subject  and  mode  of 
baptism,  but  he  undertakes  to  prove  that  our  practice  is  ^'■inju- 
rious to  the  well-being  of  society,  religious  and  political:''^  and 
to  the  discussion  of  this  question  as  well  as  the  other,  he  pub- 
lishes at  the  close  of  his  debate,  what  he  himself  expressly  calls 
*' an  invitation  or  chaHenge  to  any  Fedo-bavtist  •jiinister.'^^  It 
soon  appeared  that  a  subscription  paper  was  in  circulation  for 
the  joint  purpose  of  requesting  a  ^'isit  from  Mr.  Campbell,  and 
of  paying  his  expenses.  On  the  Author's  expressing  a  willing- 
ness to  subscribe  five  dollars  himself,  if  the  paper  v/ere  presorted, 
it  soon  disappeared^  probably  fnsm  an  apprehension  that  a  repe- 
tition of  Mr.  Vaughn's  precipitancy  might  issue  in  a  similar 
manner.  While  they  were  deliberating  upon  the  matter,  be- 
tween two  and  three  years,  the  rumours  which  reached  Augusta, 
concerning  Mr.  Campbell's  genius  and  education,  his  resistless 
boldness  and  overwhelming  eloquence,  raised  the  spirits  of  his 
friends  completely  to  the  war  point,  and  drove  the  author  of 
this  work  lo  (what  he  hopes  may  without  presumption,  be  called,) 
constant  and  fei'vent  prayer.  From  the  rep*  rts  of  Baptists  and 
Pedobaptists,  all  parties  expected  that  on  Mr.  Campbell's  ap- 
pearance, their  eyes  should  behold  such  a  man  as  they  had  never 
seen  before,  and  might  never  view  a«  ain.  Their  fancies  were 
glowing  with  the  image  of  a  man,  whose  clear  and  accurata 
reasoning,  whose  ready,  rapid  and  inexhaustible  elocution,  were 
backed  by  such  a  person  and  port,  such  a  visage  and  voice,  as 
were  altogether  unparalleled  and  irresistible.  The  courage  of 
his  friends  so  far  from  faultering,  was  now  wound  up  beyond 
the  point  of  composure,  to  a  considerable  degree  of  confidence. 
They  resolved  that  the  Author  should  either  decline  a  meeting 
with  Mr.  Campbell,  or  fall  before  him.  Major  (now  Colonel) 
Morris,  a  real  friend,  was  despatched  to  him,  to  inquire  first 
whether  he  was  willing  to  meet  Mr.  Campbell,  and  on  another 
visit,  to  inquire  whether  he  would  undertake  to  communicate  his 
willingness  in  writing.  An  afiirmative  answer  being  given  to 
both  these  questions,  a  correspondence  was  immediately  begun, 
and  on  the  15th  of  October  a  debate  commenced,  which  (omit- 
ting the  sabbath,)  continued  until  the  evening  of  the  22nd,  (not 
the  21st,  as  Mr.  Campbell's  title  page  declares.)  v 


In  the  Prospectus  of  Mr. .  Campbell's  professed  Report  of 
the  debate,  he  has  prsmised  that  '■'■all  the  arguments  on  both 
sides,  shall  be  faithfully  and  impartially  detailed.''  Having 
circulated  many  thousands  of  copies  throughout  the  United 
States,  he  has  publicly  triumphed  in  the  eSect  produced  upon 
the  character  and  cause  of  his  Antagonist-  Sufficient  time  has 
elapsed  to  satisfy  both  parties  that  this  effect  is  considerable.  In 
prop<«;tion  to^the  groundless  exultation  of  his  adherents,  Pedo- 
baptists  suffer  mortification  and  loss.  The  exultation  was  on 
the  other  side,  at  tlje  debate,  but  it  has  changed  hands  by  means 
of  his  printed  Report.  Whatsoever  may  be  thought  or  said 
about  the  propriety  of  exposing  such  a  work,  among  persons  at 
a  distance  from  the  field  of  conflict,  it  is  confidently  believed 
that  every  Pedobaptist  who  heard  the  discussion,  and  myriads 
who  did  not  hear  it,  are  conscientiously  convinced  that  to  answer 
Mr.  Campbell's  book  is  an  important  duty,  and  that  it  cannot  be 
neglected  without  betraying  the  cause  of  truth.  In  defending 
himself  and  the  Church  of  Christ  from  the  injurious  assault  of 
Mr.  Campbell,  the  Author  does  not  seek  a  contest  with  other 
Baptist  ministers  or  churches.  With  honest  and  respectful 
plainness,  he  can  assure  them  that  it  is  not  their  wisdom  to  be 
indentified  with  him.  If  in  some  instances,  they  have  thought 
and  acted  otherv/ise,  they  and  not  the  Author,  must  be  answera- 
ble for  their  folly.  It  will  be  recollected  that  the  subjects  in 
dispute,  are,  whether  an  ordinance  which  we  hold  dearer  than 
life,  is  "  a  human  tradition,"  and  whether  it  is  "injurious  to 
society,  religious  and  political."  When  our  religious  principles 
and  our  mural  characters  are  unjustly  assailed,  we  are  not  more 
willing  to  plead  guilty,  if  Mr.  Campbell  were  backed  by  every 
Baptist  on  i',arth,  than  we  are,  when  our  Accuser  stands  alone. 
That  the  better  sort  of  Baptists  in  Mr.  Campbell's  neighbourhood, 
condemn  him  and  his  book,  appears  probable  from  the  combin"- 
which  he  has  received  from  Mr.  Greatrake,  a  preacher  of  theirs. 
But  that  many  olhers  at  a  distance  are  otherwise-minded,  appears 
probable  from  Mr.  Campbell's  answer  to  his  castigator.  He 
there  publishes  a  flattering  communication  from  an  aged  strano-er 
in  the  State  of  New  York,  and  tells  us  that  he  '-could  give 
others  equally  as  flattering,  from  many  parts  of  the  UnUed 
States."  The  extract  which  he  has  copied  is  signed  by  l  imothy 
Brewster,  a  Baptist  minister,  and  is  in  the  following  words;  viz: 
"  I  have  been  in  the  habit  of  reading  all  publications  on  the  doc- 
"  trine  of  baptism  that  have  come  my  way  fov  forty  years.  I 
"have  never  found  a  piece  that  was,  in  my  opinion,  so  full  so 
"plain,  so  pertinent,  so  instructing,  so  convincing,  so  uiian- 
"swerable,  and  unexceptionable^  as  yours  against  Mr.  M'Calla. 
"  And  1  thought  it  and  felt  it  my  duty  to  say  to  you — Well  lone 
"  good  and  faithful  servant  of  the  church  of  the  LorPs  Anoint- 
"ed." 

Notwithstanding  Mr.  Greatrake's  statement  that  "the  more 
solid  and  pious  of  the  Baptist  Church"  condemn  Mr.  Ctinp- 
bcU's  public  debates,  he  admits  that  they  have  secured  him  ex- 


& 

tensive  "influence  among  the  Baptists,"  who  have  abundantly 
rewarded  his  false  zeal  "with  their  subscriptions  and  their 
smiles. "  In  one  place  he  tells  him,  '•  It  appears  that  a  conside- 
rable part  ol  the  Baptist  church  in  the»e  western  sections  of 
the  country  have  given  the  reins  of  dictation  into  your  hands." 
FroiTi  one  of  these  deluded  followers,  a  letter  was  sent  to  the 
Editor  or  Editors  of  the  Columbian  Star,  a  Baptist  paper,  pub- 
lished in  Washington  City  ;  remonstrating  against  a  gross  slander 
which  that  paper  had  aided. in  circulating  concerning  the  manner 
of  conducting  the  debate.  The  Editor  corrects  the  slander,  but 
inserts  a  far  more  slanderous  extract  from  the  hitter,  of  which 
no  correction  has  ever  yet  come  to  hand,  although  evidence  of 
the  fact  must  have  been  before  the  Editors  long  ago  in  Mr. 
Campbell's  book.  Their  western  correspondent,  to  whose 
statement  they  try  to  give  currency,  by  assuring  the  public  that 
he  is  ''a  very  respectable  clergyman  in  Kentucky,''  says,  that 
"Mr.  Tampbell.  in  a  most  masterly  manner,  supported  the  cause 
he  had  espoused."  Mr.  Campbelj's  book  has  informed  them  what 
that  cause  was  ;  it  was  a  declaration  that  Pedo  baptism  was  in- 
jurious tb  the  well-being  of  civil  and  religious  society.  It  has 
also  informed  them  substantially,  of  the  masterly  manner  in 
which  he  defended  it.  It  was  by  roundly  accusing  the  I'edo- 
baptists  not  only  of  innovation,  will-worship  and  corruption,  but 
of  deception,  superstition,  imposition,  persecution,  and  such  like 
slight  offencn.  These  accusations,  no  less  impious  than  impotent, 
form  just  one  half  of  that  cause  which  the  Columbian  Star,  through 
their  "  very  respectable  clergyman  in  Kentucky,"  would  have 
the  world  to  believe  was  supported  "in  a  mont  masterly  Tuan- 
ner.'"  They  are  found  in  that  zealous  production  which  secured 
to  Mr,  Campbell  the  "  subscriptinns'^  and  the  "  smilps^''  of  west- 
ern Baptists,  and  gave  him  among  them,  what  Mr.  Greatrake 
calls  '■^the  reins  of  dictation.''^  These  accusations  form  an  im- 
portant part  of  that  book,  which,  if  we  may  believe  its  author, 
has  been  declared  by  Mr.  Brewster,  of  New  York,  and  other 
flatterers  equally  great,  in  ''many  parts  of  the  United  vStates," 
to  be  "  so  full,  so  plain,  so  pertinent,  so  instructing,  so  convinc- 
ing, so  unanswerable,  and  [even]  so  uNExcKPTioNABLt.."  Be 
it  so  then.  There  are  many  Baptist  preachers  in  the  East  and 
in  the  West,  who  wish  others  to  place  them  along  with  the 
amiable  Fuller  or  Gill,  while  they  choose  to  indentify  themselves 
with  Robinson  or  Campbell.  By  profession,  they  are  so  charit- 
able and  antisectarian  that  they  seem  to  think  it  quite  sinful  to 
mount  a  polemical  charger  even  in  the  best  of  causes,  yet  they  are 
willing  to  hold  the  stirrup  while  a  more  daring  champion  vaults 
into  the  saddle.  If  in  the  overthrow  of  their  hero,  a  mingled 
strife  should  trample  upon  the  toes  of  his  abettors,  let  them  re- 
member who  made  this  unhallowed  attack,  and  who  said  that 
it  was  comJucted  in  a  manner  so  '-^  masterly^^  a.n(\  so  '•'•iinexcep- 
tiono.ble.^^  Let  who  will  uttei  or  approve  such  foul  aspersions, 
it  is  right  that  they  should  be  repelled,  that  innocence  should  be 
brought  to  light,  and  the  ordinances  of  God  defended. 


When,  under  a  mask  of  zeal  agairst  infant-baptism,  the  Uni- 
tarian Robinson  of  iinglaiid  endeavoured  to  lead  the  [jeople 
away  to  infidelity,  the  greatest  Baptist  in  the  kingdom  was 
among  the  fiist  to  expose  the  imposture.  But  the  Baptists  of 
America  have  republished  and  industriously  circulated  this  infi- 
del production,  and  where  is  the  Andrew  Fuller  to  lift  his  voice 
against  it?  Even  the  solitary  and  unheeded  little  Mr.  Great- 
rake,  who  has  condemned  Robinson's  legitimate  offspring  (as 
truly  as  death  is  the  oftspring  of  sin,)  has  not,  it  is  believed, 
borne  any  testimony  a  uinst  the  guilty  parent.  Even  his  indig- 
nant rebuke  of  heresy  and  hypocrisy,  accompanied  with  the  most 
wanton  and  inexcusable  caluinay,  is  rather  a  reproach  upon  ms 
brethren,  who,  partly  by  silence,  and  partly  by  express  approba- 
tion, have  become  accomplices  in  liis  guilt. 

If  their  error  cannot  be  corrected  by  wisdom  and  pious  zeal, 
they  are  likely  to  be  convinced  by  sore  experience.  'Ihey  al- 
reacly  find  that  taking  him  into  their  favour,  is  like  receiving 
worms  into  the  human  body  ;  they  prey  upon  the  coats  of  the 
stomach,  instead  of  its  pernicious  contents.  They  would  let 
him  bite  at  the  heels  of  Hedobaptist  Editors,  Pastors,  Missiona- 
ries,^ Churches  and  Church-courts,  until  his  heart  was  eased  of 
its  venom  ;  but  they  find  that  he  is  not  satisfied  with  this.  Wher- 
ever he  sees  any  evidence  of  piety,  zeal  or  usefulness,  among  the 
Baptists  themselves,  he  considers  them  lawful  game,  especially 
if  his  temper  is  whetted,  like  Esau's  appetite,  by  disappointment. 
When  he  has  made  an  unsuccessful  campaign  against  such  papers 
as  the  Lexiijgton  Luminary  and  the  Pillsburgh  Recorder^  he  is 
very  apt  to  make  the  Baptist  Luminary  and  Star  pay  the  ex- 
pences  of  the  war.  These  he  treats  with  perfect  contempt, 
while  he  quotes  Socinian  and  Infidel  papers  as  suuporfing  their 
cause  in  the  m,ost  muaferly  manner.  It  is  well  known  that  he  is 
not  only  o])posed  to  the  voluntary  pecuniary  support  of  the  cler- 
gy, but  even  to  the  very  existence  of  such  an  order;  and  this, 
not  only  among  the  Pedobaptists,  but  among  the  Baptists  them- 
selves, unless  tJiey  will  become  as  impious  as  this  Clerico-anticle- 
rial  Knight  errant,  and  as  abject  in  their  servility  as  his  Sancho, 
Sidney  Rigdon,  who  attended  him  to  K.entucky.  The  superior 
virulence  which  he  has  shewn  to  the  Baptist  Missionaries  re- 
minds one  of  he  conduct  of  Ahasuerusoi  Cambyses  the  son  and 
successor  of  Cyrus,  who,  after  a  disgraceful  retreat  from  a  for- 
eign war,  wreaked  Ids  vengence  upon  his  own  mau;istrates  and 
subjects,  and  even  upon  his  own  brother  and  sister.  A  war 
with  women  was  more  suitable  to  the  temper  and  talerits  of  that 
degenerate  monarch,  and  those  who  have  witnessed  Mr.  Camp- 
bell's brave  and  repeated  assaults  upon  the  character  of  Mrs. 
Judson,  the  Baptist  Missionary,  can  attest  the  same  for  him, 
without  putting  Mr,  Rigdon  to  the  trouble  of  signing  a  certifi- 
cate. If  Mr.  Campbell  would  be  satisfied,  like  Sanballat  the 
Horonite,  with  opposing  the  budding  of  Pedobaptist  churches 
onl)*,  some  of  his  brethr^-n  cuuld  bear  it,  but  his  anger  has  burn- 
ed against  the  Baptist  Church  in  Fomfret,  Connecticut,  fur  de- 


voting  a  house  to  religious  purposes,  and  he  has  represented  him- 
self as  guilty  of  a  real  sin  in  aiding  to  build,  by  voluntat-j  con- 
tribution, a  Baptist  church,  in  a  village  where  there  was  no  place 
of  worship.  His  own  aifecting  account  of  this  mournful  immo- 
rality is  in  the  following  eloquent  language  ;  Viz  :  "I  made  an 
"•extensive  tour  through  a  part  of  the  eastern  region,  visiting 
"the  cities  of  New  Yorl,  Philadelphia,  Baltimore,  and  Wash- 
"ington,  and  did,  to  my  present  shame,  by  milking  both  the 
"  sheep  and  the  goats,  obtain  about  1000  dollars  for  the  building 
"  of  a  meeting-house  in  Wellsburgh,  a  place  then  destitute  of  any 
"house  for  religious  meetings."  If  Mr.  Campbell  would  con- 
fine his  spite  to  the  Pedo  baptist  Conferences  and  Conventions, 
Synods  and  Assemblies,  he  would  be  more  tolerable ;  but  he 
prefers  sometimes  taking  an  object  on  which  his  artillery  may 
nave  more  effect.  For  this  purpose  he  very  unceremoniously 
attacks  the  Baptist  Conventions  of  New  England,  and  that  no- 
ble committee  who  were  instrumental  in  their  formation.  These 
were  the  worthy  Baldwin,  Boles,  Williams,  Going,  and  Way- 
land,  whose  excellence  might  well  excite  his  spleen,  and  whose 
piety  and  fidelity  in  the  midst  of  general  defection,  endear  their 
names  to  the  writer  of  this  work,  and  to  all  who  prize  the  essen- 
tials of  religion  above  its  circumstantials. 

The  Author  is  very  far  from  insinuating  that  Mr.  Campbell 
should  not  expose,  with  a  proper  spirit,  the  real  faults  of  Min- 
isters and  people,  even  if  they  do  belong  to  his  denomination. 
Their  being  in  his  connexion  should  be  a  reason  for  denouncing 
their  errors  moi'e  plainly  and  fully.  But  it  so  happens  that  their 
errors  are  all  that  Mr.  Campbell  loves  about  them,  and  their  ex- 
cellencies are  the  object  of  his  unrelenting  hatred,  and  ceaseless 
opposition.  That  a  man  who  is  perpetually  talking  and  preach- 
ing, and  writing  and  printing  in  such  a  cause,  can  be  actuated  by 

a  proper  spirit. that  a  tree  which  bears  such  fruit,  can  be 

a  good  tree,  requires  more  than  christian  charity  to  believe.  But 
he  has  not  left  us  at  a  loss  for  his  motive.  We  shall  give  it  in 
his  own  words.  After  the  above  mentioned  snarling  condemna- 
tion of  the  Baptist  Ministers  and  Conventions  of  New  England, 
he  tells  us  what  had  moved  him  to  publish  that  and  many  similar 
productions  for  the  past  year.  "My  great  object,''  says  he, 
*'  was  to  please  myself."  There  is  no  reason  to  doubt  that  this 
is  as  faithful  an  exhibition  of  his  motives,  as  the  little  child  made 
of  its  desires,  when  instead  of  praying,  ''•thy  will  be  done,"  it 
said,  ^'•my  will  be  done."  And  it  cannot  be  doubted  that  Mr. 
Campbell's  declaration  is  as  good  a'correction  of  the  first  ques- 
tion in  the  Shorter  Catechism,  as  this  child's  is  of  the  3rd  petition 
in  the  Lord's  prayer.  For  wisdom  and  dignity,  Mr.  Campbell 
considers  the  Westminister  Assembly  mere  children  in  compari- 
son with  himself.  They  say,  "Man's  chief  end  is  to  glorify 
God  and  enjoy  him  forever''  Mr.  Campbell  says,  "My  great 
object  was  to  please  myself."  Whether  he  has  not  here  told 
more  of  the  truth  than  he  is  willing,  upon  second  thought,  to 
acknowledge,  may  be  safely  submitted  to  the  judgement  of  pious 


Baptists.  Is  Mr.  Campbell's  apposition  to  praying,  singing 
Psalms,  and  preachiug  the  gospel,  even  by  pious  Bapiists, 
calculated  to  please  God  or  to  please  himself?  Is  his  op- 
position to  Baptist  meeting-houses  and  congregations,  minis- 
ters and  Theological  Seminaries,  on  account  of  the  good  they  do, 
most  pleasing  to  a  good  or  to  a  bad  conscience  ?  And  who  is  most 
pleased,  the  Author  of  Mercies,  or  the  Father  of  lies,  by  Mr. 
Campbell's  fretful  aiid  persevering  hostility  to  Baptist  Missiona- 
ries and  Missionary  .Societies,  Bible  and  Benevolent  Societies, 
and  every  plan  and  effort  which  good  Baptists  can  use  for  pro- 
moting the  Glory  of  God  and  the  good  of  souls  ?  Let  the  Bap- 
tists tnemselves  consider  this  matter.  "  1  speak  as  unto  wise 
men,  judge  ye  what  I  say." 

During  the  six  months'  correspondence  which  preceded  the 
debate,  the  Author  made  laborious  as  well  as  prayerful  prepara- 
tion for  an  event  which  he  thought  very  probable.  He  brought 
almost  as  many  books  along  with  him  as  Mr,  Campbell  had  in 
the  debate  with  Mr.  Walker.  These  he  unlocked  by  easy  and 
accurate  references,  occupying  tfiree  closely  written  sheets  of 
paper,  resembling  a  Lawyer's  brief,  and  compacted  by  means  of 
a  sort  of  short  hand,  almost  as  original  as  that  of  the  unlettered 
shop-keeper,  who  made  a  circle  for  a  cheese,  and  put  a  dot  in 
the  centre  to  denote  a  grindstone.  These  m  iterials  being  all 
moveable,  could  be  disposed  of  in  any  way  that  the  occasion 
might  call  for.  They  admitted  of  transposition,  compression  or 
amplification,  as  circumstances  might  require.  At  the  very  com- 
mencement of  the  debate,  and  in  several  subsequent  stages,  the 
Author  thought  it  b<st  to  vary  from  the  method  prescribed  in  his 
notes.  This  new  arrangement,  though  not  agreeable  to  an  inex- 
perienced theorist^  is  found  by  experiment  to  be  so  effective,  that 
it  will  be  continued  in  this  work.  The  only  exceptions  now  re- 
collected, are,  that  Jewish  Proselyte  Baptism  and  tht  N.  C. 
authorities  will  be  put  into  places  to  which  they  more  naturally 
belong. 

It  cannot  be  concealed  that  Mr.  Campbell  entered  the  field 
with  far  too  much  confidence  in  his  own  powers.  There  were 
many  things  which  greviously  disappointed  the  high  expectations 
which  his  vain  boastings  had  excited.  He  spent  much  of  his 
time  in  complaining  of  the  use  which  the  Author  made  of  his 
little  manuscript.  In  this  he  called  into  requisition  all  his  bra- 
very and  generalship  ;  for  after  many  defeats  he  would  ral'y,  and 
return  to  the  onset.  When  he  found  that  this  availed  him  very  little 
more  than  butting  his  head  against  one  of  the  trees  undei  which 
the  encounter  commenced,  he  appeared  like  one  reaching  in 
every  direction  after  something  to  say;  and  after  all,  was  so  much 
at  a  loss  for  matter,  that  he  gave  a  partof  some  of  his  half-hours 
to  his  Antagonist.  When  shame  or  policy  made  him  keep  his 
time  to  himself,  the  palpable  sterility  of  his  addresses,  his  tedi- 
ous repetitions,  and  his  frequent,  protracted,  ami  unmeaning 
•digressions,  will  not  soon  be  forgotten  by  those  who  heard  them. 

B 


10 

None  of  these  things  appear  in  their  true  colours  in  his  printed 
report.  There  he  has  suppressed  much  nonsense,  introduced 
much  new  matter,  and  endeavoured  to  give  everything  of  his 
own,  such  a  turn  as  would  at  least  appear  to  beai  upon  the  sub- 
ject in  hand.  As  this  is  an  object  better  worth  contending  with 
than  his  real  speeches,  the  Author  is  ir.  some  n\easure,  under  the 
necessity  of  making  a  correspondiiig  alteration  in  his  replies.  Be- 
sides this,  the  audience  will  recollect  that  the-author  repeatedly 
and  emphatically  iaforaied  them  that  he  was  obliged,  by  the  want 
of  time,  to  omit  much  matter  which  was  in  his  notes.  H^s  notes 
are  also  enlarged  during  his  resit'encein  Philadelphia^  by  exam- 
ining the  Commentary  of  the  great  and  the  good  Dr.  Gill,  the 
most  eminent  and  othodox  of  the  Baptist  Clergy.  Perhaps  the 
greatest  improvement  in  his  argument  may  be  found  in  the  histo- 
ry of  the  rayde  of  Baptism,  and  in  the  argument  on  household 
baptism,  on  which  last,  he  has  been  much  aided  by  Ti-ommius' 
Concordance,  lent  to  him  by  his  friend  and  neighbour  Dr.  Wylie; 
and  by  the  controversial  pieces  of  Taylor,  the  Editor  of  Calm et's 
Dictionary.  For  this  purpose  these  last  were  sent  for  to  London, 
by  Mr.  Jos.  P.  Engles,  a  member  of  the  same  Session  with  the 
Author,  and  one  to  whose  assistance  he  is  much  indebted  in  pub- 
lishing the  "Discussion  of  Universal  ism,''  as  well  as  the  present 
work. 

Introductory  to  Mr.  Campbell's  Report,  he  has  professed  to 
copy  our  correspondence.  Its  many  typographical  errors  make 
it  necessary  that  a  new  edition  should  accompany  these  papers. 
In  one  of  these  letters,  the  Author  mentions  a  reformed  City  of 
Switzerland,  as  the  seat  of  a  theological  debate.  In  the  letter 
now  in  my  hands,  the  name  of  the  place  is  Berne  |  in  Mr. 
Campbells  printed  copy,  it  is  Rome.  However,  in  his  view, 
there  is  very  little  dift'erence  between  the  Mother  of  Harlots  and 
the  Bride  of  Christ :  for  the  sake  of  their  infants,  lie  treats  them 
both  pretty  much  alike.  The  unusual  freedoms  which  he  has 
taken,  not  only  in  composing  and  publishing  for  the  Author,  but 
in  traducing  his  character,  and  that  of  others,  would  certainly 
deceive  the  public,  and  injure  the  truth,  if  they  were  to  pass  un- 
noticed. A  narrative  of  facts,  the  spuriousness  of  the  report, 
and  some  account  of  the  Reporter,  will  necessarily  swell  these 
collateral  papers.  On  the  last  subject  the  Author  hopes  to  be 
excused  for  republishing  several  pages  of  Mr.  Greatrake's  tes- 
timony, i  hese  documents  will  be  closed  by  a  new  miniature 
ironical  Report,  in  alternate  speeches,  intended  as  a  syllabus  of 
the  Author's  real  arguinent,  in  connexion  with  specimens  of  that 
portion  of  Mr.  Campbell's  book,  which  cannot  be  noticed  in  a 
serious  defence. 

After  what  has  occurred  in  a  similar  case,  it  would  not  be  at 
all  surprihing,  if  Mr.  Campbell  had  succeeded  in  propping  his 
fraU  fabric,  by  the  premature  and  ex  parte  testimony  of  many 
witnesses.  Of  this  he  has  hau  a  finh  opportunity,  from  which 
his  Antagonist  has  been  precluded  by  removing  to  Philadelphia. 


11 


He  even  tells  us  of  several  of  his  particuhr  friend?  who  took 
notes  (iuriiigu  part  of  il,.-.  debate.  Vet  alter  alllhe  has  iai'l  be- 
foie  the  public  no  certificate,  except  that  of  his  mere  shadow, 
Sidney  Rigdon,  who  might  as  well  be  called  Sidney  Suly-Cusnp- 
bell.  As  many  are  in  the  habit  of  confirming  matters  by  two  or 
three  witnesses,  he  thinks  to  give  double  weight  to  his  certificate, 
by  represetiting  its  author  as  a  Bishop  of  Pittsburgh.  He  ne- 
glected however,  to  intbrm  us  that  this  celebrated  Pittsburgh 
Bishop,  Sidney  Rigdon,  is  the  creature  of  Alexander  Campbell, 
Archbishop  of  Butialoe  Creek.  As  this  expert  manufacturer  of 
E:  iscopal  witnesses,  knew  that  several  Pedobaptist  ministers 
also  took  notes,  he  endeavours  before  hand  to  invalidate  their 
testimony,  by  an    artful  insinuation  that  neither  of  then\  was 

f)resent  during  the  v/hole  debate.  After  naming  one  who  actual- 
y  did  depart,  he  mentions  the  other,  as  ''the  young  divine  that 
took  his  place,  after  he  quit  the  ground."  Mr.  CampD^ll  had. 
skill  enough  to  know  the  point  of  danger.  He  knew  that  this 
young  divine  had  a  soul  of  his  ownj  and  he  knew  also  that  he  had 
taken  no  man's  place,  but  had,  attentively  and  laboriously  and 
faitlifully,  kept  his  own  place,  from  the  commencement  to  the 
close  of  the  controversy.  Now  Providenee  so  directed  events, 
that  this  young  divine  came  to  Philadelphia  as  a  Delegate  to  the 
General  Assembly  oT  May  1825,  a  few  weeks  after  the  Author 
had  commenced  the  perusal  of  Mr.  Campbell's  book.  A  certi- 
ficate which,  by  request,  he  wrote  at  his  lodgings,  and  handed  to 
the  Author,  may  now  be  seen  beside  that  which  Mr.  Campbell,  has 
adduced. 


Certificate  of  Mr  Piigdon. 

"To  all  whom  it  may  coucern : 
This  is  to  certify  that  having  been  pre- 
sent at  the  Debate  in  Kentucky^  in 
October  last,  between  Viess.  A.  Camp- 
bell and  W.  L.  Maccalia,  ami  that 
being  engai^td  in  taking  notes  of  thut 
(liscussioD,  which  I  handed  over,  to 
A.  Campbell,  and  having  read  over 
that  discussion  on  the  subject  and  ac- 
tion of  Christian  baplism,  now  pre 
sented  to  the  public  in  the  following 
pages,  I  can  recommend  the  same  as  a 
fair  and  full  exhibition  of  both  sides  of 
the  controversy,  of  the  arguments  and 
topics  of  illustration,  used  by  the  a- 
foresaid  gentlemen. 

SIDNEY  RIGDON.'' 

May  4,  1824. 

Let    any  sober,    experienced   and    practical    man, let 

any  pious  and  intelligent  Baptist,  now  place  himself  in  the  Au- 
thors  situation.  Suppose  that  a  decided  enemy  to  Christianity, 
calling  himself  a  Regular  Pedobaptist  Minister,  were  to  arraign 
the  whole  Baptist  denomination  before  the  public,  undertaking 
in  the  most  confident  manner,  to  prove  them  guilty  of  the  highest 
crimes,  and  to  prove  their  system  of  religion  inconsislent  witli 


Certificate  of  Mr.  Lowry. 

"  Philadelphia,  May  24th,  1825. 

I  do  hereby  certify,  that  I  attended 
at  the  debate  on  Baptism,  held  at 
Washington,  Ky.  in  October  V'.TJ,  be- 
tween \.'ess.  C.-mpbell  and  Maccalia; 
that  I  was  pre.-nnt  during  the  v.' hole 
discussion,  and  took  notes.  I  have 
since  read  the  account  of  the  debate 
as  given  by  Mr.  Campbell,  at  the  tame 
time  comparing  it  with  my  notes;  and 
can  unhesitatingly  :ay  that  the  account 
given  is  essentially  incorrect,  as  to  the 
matter  and  manner,  both  of  Mr.  Mac- 
calla's  speeches  ;ind  his  own. 

Given  under  my  hand  this  dsvy  and 
date  above. 

SAML.  G.  LOWRY." 


12 

the  well-being  of  civil  and  religious  society.     Suppose  that  for 
years  he  has  sole  possession  of  the  Arena,  vapouring  and  vaunt- 
ing, and  strutting  and  swelling,  antl  puffing  and  boasting  like  a 
swaj^gering  braggadocio,  challenging    any  man  of   the   Baptist 
ranks  to  stand  in  their  defence,  and  casting  their  quietness  into 
their  teeth,  as  an  evidence  of  their  guilt.     Suppose  that  after 
being  fairly  met  and  completely  defeated,  he  should  endeavour 
to  retrieve  his   affairs,  b^    an  expedient  as  directly  opposed    to 
common  honesty  and  veracity,    as  it  is  inconsistent   with  every 
manl}'  and  noble  sentiment  of  the  soul.     Suppose  that  he  for- 
ges speeches   for  you,  which  are   any   thing  but  your  own,  and 
which  he  may  answer  and  confute  at  his  leisure  ;  and  thus  effect 
by  fraud,  what  he  could  not  do  by  force  of  argument.     Would 
you  think  it  inconsistent  with  true  piety,  meekness  and  charity, 
to  say  to  this  man,  as  Michael  did  to  this  man's  father,  "The 
Lord  rebuke  thee?"     Paul  called  such  a  man  a  ''    child  of  the 
devil,"  and  an  "  enemy  of  all  righteousness  ;"  and  so  would  you. 
It  is  true  that  many  would  condemn  you  for  doing  so,  but  in  the 
midst  of  reproach,  you  could,  with  a  clean  conscience,  commend 
yourself  and  your  defence  to  the  blessing  of  the  God  of  truth. 
Through  grace,  this  is  the  present  state  of  the  Author's  mmd. 
He  covets  the  affection  and  esteem  of  pious  Baptists  :  but  he 
cannot  purchase  their  favour,  at  the  expense  of  tame  submission  to 
a  heretical  pirate,  nor  of  basely  deserting;  the  interests  of  religion. 
If  it  be  necessary,  he  is  willing  to  tell  the  truth  without  their  aid, 
and  even  under  their  displeasure  :  yet  he  would  rather  have  their 
concurrence  in  opposing  a  common  enemy.      Praying  that  this 
may  be  the  case,  he  commends   this  work  to  God,  and  to  the 
candid  perusal  of  God's  people 


PRELIMINARY  PAPERS. 

No.  1. 

THE  CHALLENGE. 


h^^ts 


Near  the  close  of  Mr.  Campbell's  last  speech,  accordihj* 
own  report  of  his  Debate  with  Mr.  Walker,  we  find  the  following 
paragraph  ;  Viz  :  "I  have  now  accepted  the  invitation  or  chal- 
**  lenge  of  the  Seceders,  and  having  now  fully  satisfied  their 
"must  eager  desires  for  an  interview  of  this  kind,  I  conceive  it 
"is  my  time  to  give  an  invitation  or  challenge  to  any  Pedo-bap- 
^^tist  minister;  and  to  return  the  compliment  with  the  utmost  ce- 
*«  remonionsness,  ]  this  day  publish  to  all  present,  that  I  feel  dis- 
^^ posed  to  meet  any  Pedo-baptist  minister  of  any  denomination^ 
*'  of  good  standing  in  his  party^  and  I  engage  to  prove  i.i  a  de- 
**bate  with  him,  either  viva  voce,  or  with  the  pen,  that  Infant 
*•  Sprinkling  is  a  human  tr\dition  and  injurious  to  the 

"  WELL  BEING  OF  SOCIETY,     RELIGIOUS     AND    POLITICAL.        1    have 

"to  add  that  I  must  have  an  equal  vote  in  determining  the  time 
"and  place.  This  is  the  only  restriction  1  attach  to  the  ohal- 
"  LENGE  /  now  publish,^' 


15 

About  two  years  after  this  bold  defiance,  Mr.  Campbell  had 
occasion  to  answer  the  Letters  of  Mr.  (now  Dr.)  Rall^ton.  His 
strictures  commence  with  the  foUowino;  paragraph;  Viz  — 
"  Many  reports  have  been  in  circulation  respecting  the  debate 
"  at  Mount  Pleasant.  Before  that  debate  took  place,  much  was 
"said  concerning  the  superlative  abilities  of  Mr.  Walker.  It 
"was  asserted  that  '  he  was  one  of  the  brightest  ornaments  of 
"the  Secession  sect.'  But  nlas!  such  is  thecapriceof  maukind, 
"such  the  instability  of  popular  opinion,  that  it  is  twnv  agreed 
"on  all  hands,  that  Mr.  W  is  even  below  mediocrity;  and, 
"what  is  still  worse,  it  is  reported  that  he  came  to  the  stage  of 
"debate,  'totally  unpre'-ared.'  This  is  ungrateful  a;id  cruel. 
"That  those  of  his  own  views,  and  especially  of  his  own  sect, 
"  should  thus  rev/ard  his  zeal  and  efforts  in  tlieir  cause,  f^tsi'es, 
"  tvho  on  his  side  of  the  question,  sinck  or  before  that  Debate, 
^^  has  done  better  or  who  c\y:  do  better?  For  our  own  part  we 
"  sympathize  with  Mr.  Walker,  a'hd  d(,'  not  rate  his  talents  nor  his 
"industry  so  low,  as  either  his  quondam  or  his  present  friends 
"seem  to  do.  We  think  it  an  act  of  extreme  unkindness,  on 
"the  part  of  his  professed  friends,  to  attribute  the  refutation  of 
"  the  Pedo  baptist  arguments  to  the  incapacity  or  negligence  of 
''Mr.  W.  Is  there  no  man  in  all  the  hosis  of  Pkdo-bap- 
"tists,  of  greater  capacity  and  industry  than  Mr,  fPalker?  If 
"there  be,  let  the  cause  be  maintained  and  let  not  Mr. 
"  fV.bear  all  tiie  blame,  as  if  the  whole  cause  rested  on  him.^' 

When  these  invitations  were  at  last  accepted,  and  the  parties 
were  on  the  ground,  Mr,  Campbell  had  penetration  enmgh  to 
see  that  there  was  an  advantage  in  being  thought  not  only  bold 
but  modest.  He  had  secured  the  former  character  by  his  chal- 
lenges, and  he  endeavoured  to  secure  the  latter,  at  the  expense 
of  his  Antagonist,  bv  representing  his  Opponent  and  not  himself 
as  the  challenger.  Finding  all  the  evidence  against  this  posi- 
tion, he  endeavoured  to  establish  it  by  a  circuitous  process.  He 
represented  this  Debate  as.  arising  out  of  his  debate  with  Mr. 
Walker,  in  which  the  challenge  came,  according  to  his  state- 
ment, from  the  Pedobaptist  and  not  from  the  Baptist  party. 
This  he  has  publicly  declared  in  the  introduction  and  in  the  close 
of  his  Debate  with  Mr.  Walker.  In  the  first  place  he  says, 
"  As  Mr.  Walker  gave  the  challenge,  it  became  his  duty  to  open 
"  the  debate  "  In  the  last  place,  he  says,  as  recorded  above,  I 
"  have  now  accepted  the  invitation  or  challenge  of  the  Seceders.'* 

Mr.  Campbell's  challenges  gained  him  a  character  for  at  least 
ordinary  courage,  among  the  Kentuckians,  who  are  no  strangers 
to  combats,  either  in  words  or  blows.  But  they  gave  him  credit 
for  more  than  common  boldness,  when  they  found  him,  in  the 
face  of  palpable  evidence,  denying  the  fiict  of  his  being  the  chal- 
lenger. As  such  heroic  exploits  Mre  seldom  found  alone,  his  as- 
sertion concerning  IVIr.  Walker's  sending  the  original  challenge 
became  liable  to  suspicion.  It  seems  that  Mr.  Greatrake  excited 
Mr.  Campbell's  wrath  by  expressing  such  a  suspicion  in  his  own 


14 

neighbourhood.  In  reply  to  Mr.  Campbell's  censures,  he  after- 
wards reiterates  bis  opinion  in  the  following  langaaxt.,  V;/ 

"li'oii  go  on  to  observe  that  in  jour  first  debate  with  Mr.  Wal- 
"ker  you  'was  v/ritten  to  three  times,'  before  you  accepted  of 
"  the  challenge.  Who  wrote  to  you  }  Not  Mr.  Walker :  No,  it 
"  was  a  Baptist  minister,  Mr.  Birch  :  and  who  knows  but  it  was 
<'a  preconcerted  thing  between  you  and  Mr  Birch  ?  This  is  a 
"  conjecture,  to  be  sure,  but  one,  in  a  measure,  authorized  by  a 
"  knowledge  of  your  *  ruling  passion.'  It  is  certain  you  ief"  the 
"essential  interests  of  those  who  v/ere  more  imsriediarely  under 
*'your  care,  as  a  teacher,  to  go  elsewhere,  to  contend  tht-  subor- 
"dinate  principles.  Mnd  it  is  certain,  and  posilive,  and  triie, 
*'  that  you  never  did  receive  a  challenge  from  a  Fedobaptist,  to 
^^debate.'\ 

Mr.  Campbell  gave  previous  printed  notice  of  the  debate  be- 
tween him  and  Mr.  Walker.  In  this  he  represented  his  antago- 
nist, as,  ''^having  challenged  any  minister  of  Ike  Baptist 
Church.''^  This  advertisement  Mr.  Walker  read  and  exposed 
about  the  comnrencement  of  their  interview.  The  introduction 
to  Mr.  Walker's  Reply  to  Mr.  Campbell's  report  speaks  of  the 
affair  as  follows.  Viz.  "  Mr.  Walker  then  proceeded  to  read 
"the  advertisement  mentioned  above,  in  which  it  was  stated 
"  that '  Mr.  Walker  having  challenged  any  minister  of  the  Bap- 
"  tist  church,'  &c.  Mr.  Walker  then  publicly  denied,  that  ever 
''  he  had  challenged  any  minister  of  the  Baptist  church,  for  a  dis- 
"  pute.  Mr.  Campbell  after  stating  that  he  was  the  author  of  the 
^'publication,  said  that  he  had  received  the  information  from  Mr. 
"Birch.  By  request,  Mr.  Birch  then  made  a  full  statement  of 
"  what  had  passed  at  the  place,  at  v/'nich  Mr.  Walker  preached.'' 
f"  The  fright  in  which  Mr.  Birch  appeared,  I  think  did  not  pre- 
"  vent  him  from  telling  the  truth,  I  believe  he  was  cantlid."]  ^'^ 
"  Mr.  Birch  gave  no  hint  of  such  a  challenge.  A  falsehood  rest- 
"ed  someplace;  and  although  Lir.  Walker  proved  to  the  satis- 
"  faction  of  the  public,  that  no  such  challenge  was  given,  Mr. 
"Campbell  never  blushed." 

Let  Mr.  Brewster  of  New  York  now  contemplate  his  "  good 
and  faithful  servant  of  the  church."  The  Editors  of  the  Co- 
lumbian Star  will  at  least  blush  for  their  champion  :  but  what 
words  could  express  their  indignation  and  contempt  against  a 
Pedobaptist  disputant,  if  his  skirts  were  defiled  with  such  du- 
plicity and  turpitude  ? 

(a)  A  note  which  Mr.  Walker-  places  ia  the  margin,  is  here  inserted  in 
brackets,  in  the  place  to  which  it  belongs. 


THE  CHALLENGE  ACCEPTED.     '  *  '^ f)         ^ 

M'Calla  to  Campbell.  *_     -V'- 

Augusla^  Bracken  County,  Ky.May  llth,  1823. 

Mr.  Campbell The  subject  of  this  commuaicatioa  is  your  publi- 
cation oa  Baptism,  and  particularly  your  proclamation  to  the  multitude  at 
the  close  of  your  debate  at  Mount  Pleasant.  It  is  found  in  the  last  paragfraph 
of  the  14ith  page  of  your  book,  entitled,  "Infant  Sprinkliug  proved  to  be  a 
human  tradition :''  printed  in  Steubeuville,  Ohio,  1820.  You  there  say,  "I 
'  conceive  it  is  my  time  to  give  an  invitation  or  challenge  to  any  Pcdobaptist 
"mmM/cr  and  to  return  the  couiplimeat  with  the  utmost  ceremoniousness,  I 
"  this  day  publish  to  all  present  that  I  feel  disposed  to  meet  any  Pedobaptist 
"  minister  of  any  denomination,  of  good  standing  in  his  parly,  and  I  engage  to 
'■^ prove,  in  a  debate  with  him,  either  viva  voce,  or  with  the  pen,  that  Infant  Sprink. 
"  ling  is  a  human  tradition,  and  injurious  to  the  well  being  of  society,  religious 
"  and  ■political.  I  have  to  add  that  I  must  have  an  equal  vote  in  de<ermining 
"the  time  and  place.  This  is  the  only  restriction  1  attach  to  the  challenge  I 
"now  publish." 

Some  copies  of  your  book  came  to  this  village  immediately  after  its  publi- 
cation. As  the  topics  which  it  discusses  had  been  matter  of  controversy 
amongst  us,  those  who  espouse  your  opinions,  set  on  foot  a  plan,  (as  I  was  in- 
formed,) to  procure  a  visit  from  you,  for  the  purpose  of  encountering  me  in 
public  debate.  What  was  the  cause  of  theii-  failure  I  cannot  tell :  but  ru. 
mours  of  your  intending  to  visit  this  country,  and  probably  this  place,  are 
lately  renewed,  and  I  am  encouraged  by  your  friends  to  hope  that  a  letter 
from  me  might  accelerate  such  an  event.  The  anxiety  which  they  manifest 
for  our  meeting,  appears  like  a  call  of  Providence,  for  me  to  solicit  your  ap- 
proach, which,  in  other  circumstances,  my  conscious  weakness  and  natural  ti- 
midity might  cause  me  to  deprecate.  If,  however,  you  should  gratify  our 
wishes,  it  is  not  necessary  that  you  should  consider  this  as  a  chadange,  but 
only  as  an  acceptance  of  your  invitation  copied  above.  Nothing  more  was 
needed  from  me,  after  the  publication  of  a  general  challenge  by  yourself. 
'{fiSfeither  is  it  necessary  that  you  should  understand  me  as  professing  a  wil- 
lingness to  confer  with  you  on  the  truth  or  falsehood  of  the  statements  in  your 
proclamation;  i.  e.  "that  Infant  Sprinkling  is  a  human  tradition,  and  injuri- 
"ousto  the  well  being  of  society,  religious  and  political."  In  order  to  come 
at  the  merits  of  a  controversy,  there  are  three  things  at  least  to  be  desired. 
The  first  is  to  lay  hold  of  the  most  important  points  in  dispute,  whether  they 
be  '.irincipal  or  auxiliary,  doctrinial  or  historical.  A  second  is,  that  they  be 
clothed  in  language,  every  way  suitable;  possessing  the  qualities  of  purity, 
propriety  and  precision.  The  third  is  that  the  question  or  questions  be  s« 
stated  as  to  preclude  equivocation,  if  possible,  and  bring  the  parties  directly 
to  an  issue ;  so  that  one  can  affirm  and  the  other  deny,  or  if  both  agree,  one 
shall  be  considerably  the  gainer.  In  the  pursuit  of  these  objects,  (as  far  as 
circumstances  would  permit,)  I  have  drafted  the  following  questions  which 
are  now  respectfully  submitted  for  your  consideration,  and  (if  you  please)  for 
your  adoption  or  rejection,  amendment  or  selection,  enlargement  or  diminution' 

1.  Were  Abraham  and  his  seed  divinely  constituted  a  true  church  of  God.* 


16 

S.  Is  the  christian  church  a  branch  of  the  Abrahamic  church  ?  or,  in  other 
words,  Are  the  Jewish  society,  before  Christ,  and  the  Christian  society,  after 
Christ,  one  and  the  same  church  in  different  dispensations  ? 

3.  Are  Jewish  circumcision,  before  Christ,  and  Christian  Baptism,  after 
Christ,  one  and  the  same  seal  in  substance,  though  in  different  forms  ? 

4.  The  administration  of  this  seal  to  infants ;  was  it  once  enjoined  by  Di- 
vine authority? 

5.  Is  it  now  prohibited  by  the  same  authority  ? 

6-  Do  the  Jews  baptize  the  infant  offspring  of  proselytes  on  the  profession 
of  the  oarents  ? 

7.  Did  they  practice  this  in  the  time  of  John  the  Baptist? 

8.  Did  they  learn  their  proselyte  Baptism  from  the  Christian  Church  ? 

9.  Is  John's  Baptism  Christian  Baptism? 

10.  Are  the  American  Baptists  descended  from  John  ?  or,  in  other  words 
have  they  obtained  their  Baptism  from  him  by  unmterrupied  succession  ? 

11.  Are  the  American  Baptists  descendants  from  the  German  Anabaptists? 
or,  in  other  words,  have  they  obtained  their  Baptism  from  Munzcr  ? 

12.  Did  John  Baptize  infants.'' 

13.  Did  John  Baptize  by  submersion? 

14.  Does  the  Bible  authorise  the  Baptism  of  infants  as  a  Christian  ordi- 
nance? 

15.  Has  the  church  of  Christ  always  practised  the  Baptism  of  infants  as  a 
Christian  ordinance  ? 

16.  Does  the  Bible  authorise  the  church  to  consider  submersion  essential  t« 
Baptism  ? 

17.  Has  the  church  of  Christ  always  considered  submersion  essential  to 
Baptism  ? 

18.  Is  the  administration  of  the  initiatory  seal  of  the  church  to  infants,  in- 
jurious to  the  well  being  of  society,  religious  and  political  ? 

19.  Is  sprinkling,  when  used  as  a  mode  of  Baptism,  injurious  to  the  well 
being  of  society,  religious  and  political  ? 

20.  Is  the  exclusion  of  infants  from  the  church  hurtful  to  society  ? 

21  Is  the  exclusive  practice  of  submersion  as  a  mode  of  Baptism  hurtful  to 
society  ? 

To  all  these  questions  I  can  conscientiously  answer  with  a  direct  affirmative 
or  negative,  and  you  could  do  the  same.  From  your  publication  of  the  de- 
bate at  Mount- Pleasant,  I  faiily  conclude  that,  (unless  suppressed  by  mutual 
consent)  they  will  be  discussed  if  we  should  ever  meet.  The  most  orderly 
method  of  discussion  will  be  the  most  expeditious  and  edifying.  T'he  terms 
of  conference  may,  I  hope,  be  precisely,  if  not  easily,  adjusted,  should  Provi- 
dence bring  us  together.  1  am  admonished  by  a  friend  of  yours  to  use  no 
equivocation  in  assuring  you  that  a  meeting  is  now  expected,  either  according 
to  this  letter  or  some  other  plan.  Evidence  of  unwillingness  on  your  part 
will  be  considered  as  a  withdrawal  of  your  challenge.  Having  asked  advice 
of  God  my  Redeemer,  to  him  do  I  now  commit  this  affair. 

W.  L.  MACCALDA. 


17 

No.   3. 
Mr.  Campbell  to  Mr.  M'Calla. 

Buffaloe,  Brook  County,  Fa.  June  \6th,  1823. 
Mr.  Maccalt,a, 

Sir Your  favor  of  the  I7th  ult.  came  to  hand  two  weeks  since.     Though 

I  was  pleased  with  the  style  and  spirit  of  your  epistle,  yet  having  never  before 
heard  of  the  writer,  I  thought  it  necessary  to  ascertain  of  what  character  and 
standing  he  might  be,before  I  should  make  any  reply.  In  the  midst  of  my  inquiries 
on  this  subject  I  received  a  letter  from  Dr,  Keith  of  your  town,  informing  me 
of  your  "  high  standing,"  in  the  Presbyterian  denomination,  and  of  your  ge- 
neral character.  Dr.  Keith's  account  was  also  confirmed  by  the  testimony  of 
a  Mr.  Logan  from  your  vicinity  and  a  respectable  member  of  your  communi- 
ty, who  favored  me  with  a  visit.  Being  now  satisfied  on  the  above  subject 
of  inquiry,  and  being  convinced  that  it  is  my  duty  to  meet  you,  in  public  de- 
bate, on  the  subject  proposed ;  I  inform  you  that  I  most  cheerfully  consent  to 
meet  you  as  aforesaid. 

The  challenge  to  which  you  refer  necessarily  grew  out  of  the  circumstances 
which  accompanied  its  first  promulgation.  I  was  drawn  into  a  discussion  by 
a  challenge  from  a  Paido -baptist.  Having  seen  that  Paido-baptist  confuted ; 
generosity,  candor,  and  the  triumph  of  truth  suggested  the  propriety  of  giv- 
ing an  opportunity,  to  any  other  Paido-baptist  teacher,  of  coming  forward  to 
take  Mr.  Walker's  side  of  the  controversy,  if  he  thought  he  could  make  a 
better  of  it.  His  side  of  the  controversy  was  comprised  in  one  short  proposi- 
tion, viz :  "  that  infant  Baptism  or  affusion  is  a  Divine  institution."  The 
Side  which  I  assumed,  from  conviction,  was  comprised  in  the  negative  of  thia 
proposition,  viz.  that  "infant  Baptism  or  afi'usion  is  not  a  Divine  institution," 
but  a  human  tradition.  This.  I  think  I  then  proved.  I  am  ready,  however, 
to  do  it  again  on  any  other  ground  that  may,  or  can  be  taken.  The  simple 
question  to  be  discussed,  divested  of  every  thing  extraneous,  is  this,  is  infant 
affusion,  or,  as  it  sounds  sweeter  to  a  Paido-baptist  ear — Is  infant  Baptism  a 
Divine  institution.  Mr.  Walker  said  yes,  I  said  JVay,  I  still  say  J^ay.  I  say 
it  is  a  human  tradition  and  injurious^  &c. 

As  to  the  place,  time,  and  manner  of  proceeding  in  the  proposed  discussion 
I  would  observe  ;  first,  with  regard  to  the  place ;  that  reason  and  equity  sug- 
gest that  it  should  be  equidistant  from  you  and  me.  I  have  no  business  to 
Kentucky  more  than  to  any  other  part  of  the  Union  ;  yet  on  certain  condi- 
tions, I  am  willing  to  go  to  Augusta. 

"^With  respect  to  the  timt,  I  think  in  ought  not  to  be  sooner  than  two  or  three 
months  after  we  have  agreed  upon  the  preliminaries :  i.  e.  it  should  be  pub- 
lished in  all  the  circumjacent  country  for  so  long  a  time.  And  as  re^pecls  the 
manner  of  procedure,  I  would  say,  I  have  no  objection  to  take  up  and  discuss  all 
the  questions  you  have  proposed,  or  any  other  you  may  please  to  propose 
provided  that  I  have  the  liberty  of  proposing  an  equal  number.  But  in  order 
to  facilitate  and  expedite  an  agreement  on  the  preliminaries,  1  will  take  the  li- 
berty of  suggesting  the  following,  which  I  conceive  to  be  perfectly  reasonable 
and  of  course  equitable — 

1.  That  W.  L.  Maccalla  agrees  to  attempt  to  proTe  that  infant  affusion  or 
infant  Baptism  is  a  Divine  institution,  and  A.  Campbell  agrees  to  attempt  t«. 


18 

prove  that  it  is  noU  in  a  public  debate  to  be  held,  if  the  Lord  wilU  at  Augusta, 
Kentucky,  on  Wednesday  the  first  day  of  October  next,  to  commence  at  1 
o'clock,  A.  M. 

2.  That  each  of  the  parties  shall  choose  one  person  to  act  as  Moderator,  and 
^hat  these  tvro  shall  choose  a  third,  who  is  neither  a  Baptist  nor  a  Paido-bap- 
ist,  to  sit  with  them. 

3.  That  these  Moderators  shall  merely  keep  order  and  not  pronounce  judg- 
ment on  the  merits  of  the  debate. 

4.  Each  speaker  shall  speak  thirty  minutes  without  interruption,  if  he  wish 
to  speak  so  long,  if  not,  he  is  free  to  stop  when  he  pleases. 

5.  W.  L.  Maccalla  as  he  supports  the  affirmative  necessarily  opens  the  de- 
bate and  A.  Campbell  closes  it. 

6.  The  Scriptural  subject  of  Baptism  shall  first  be  discussed,  then  the  action 
of  Baptism. 

7.  The  debate  shall  be  conducted  with  decorum,  and  all  improper  allusions 
and  passionate  language  guarded  against. 

8.  Whatever  books  are  produced  on  the  occasion  shall  be  equally  accessi- 
ble to  the  use  of  each  disputant. 

9.  The  discussion  shall  be  continued  from  day  to  day  until  the  people'  are 
satisfied,  or  until  the  Moderators  agree  that  enough  has  been  said  oh  each  to- 
pic. 

These  are  substantially/,  and  some  of  them  formally,  the  same  with  those 
agreed  upon  by  a  committee  at  Mount-Pleasant,  previous  to  that  debate.  If 
you  agree  to  these,  the  preliminaries  are  settled,  and  you  may  immediately 
publish  the  place  and  time  of  holding  said  deBate,  and  please  inform  me  per  re- 
turn of  mail.  I  will  then  furnish  you  with  an  equal  number  of  questions  to  thdse 
you  have  proposed  for  your  consideration,  that  you  may  have  the  fullest  time 
for  reflection.  You  have  my  consent  if  you  please,  to  call  to  your  aid  any  of 
your  Paido-baptist  brethren  in  the  ministry.  I  wish  to  convince  or  to  be  coa- 
vinced.  As  truth  is  my  riches,  the  more  I  gain  of  it  the  richer  and  the  hap- 
pier I  must  be.  Moreover  I  shall  feel  a  great  obligation  to  you  if  you  con- 
vince me  of  any  error.  I  hope  therefore  you  will  spare  no  pains  in  you  ef- 
forts to  convince  me.  You  may  rest  assured  that  you  will  find  me  open  to  con- 
viction and  anxious  to  maintain  what  I  believe. 

A.  CAMPBELL. 


No.  4. 
M'Calla  to  Campbell, 

Augusta,  Kentucky,  July  2,  \^^. 

Mr.  Campbeli, — ■- Your  letter  of  June  16th  has  just  been  received. 

It  speaks  of  the  time  and  place,  the  topics,  regulation  and  notification  of  the 
dispute  in  prospect.  You  appear  willing  to  see  me  at  Augusta,  if  I  will  com. 
ply  with  all  the  conditions  of  your  letter.  As  this  compliance  is  declined,  the 
place  of  meeting  is  a  point  still  to  be  determmed.  If  you  should  yet  consent 
to  encounter  me  here,  the  meeting  of  our  presbytery  and  synod  in  which  our 
•ongregation  has  business  imperiously  demanding  my  attention,  will  make  it 
desirable  that  we  should  apjgoint  a  time  a  week  sooner  or  several  weeks  later 
than  October  1st. 


19 

Tfeie  adjusting  of  the  points  of  difference,  in  the  form  of  disputable  proposi- 
tions, however  diflScult,  is  deemed  important  by  iis  both.  After  having  inti- 
mated to  you  my  objections  to  the  form  contained  in  your  challenge,  I  propos- 
ed a  number  of  questions  which  bring  into  viewalj  the  matter  of  the  question 
contained  in  your  challange,  with  these  advantages,  that  its  complication  is 
removed  by  method,  and  it  is  presented  in  such  a  manner  as  to  to  bring  the 
parties  to  a  fair  and  direct  issue.  You  do  not  seem  to  doubt  that  these  ends 
have  been  attained.  Yet  as  a  condition  of  your  agreeing  to  discuss  these 
questions,  which  you  have  seen  and  examined,  you  require  that  I  should  agree 
on  my  part,  to  discuss  as  many  others  which  I  have  never  seen  nor  examined ; 
although  you  have  had  the  same  opportunity  of  conveying  them  to  me,  that  I 
had  of  sending  mine  to  you.  "  He  that  answereth  a  matter  before  he  heareth 
it,  it  is  folly  and  shame  unto  him."  To  promise  a  contest  on  a  subject  not  yet 
known,  is  a  sort  of  theological  Quixotism  worthy  only  of  the  dark  ages.  If 
you  ha:/e  been  told  that  1  love  controversy  for  its  own  sake,  you  have  been 
misinformed .  I  would  not  waste  my  b  reath  nor  poison  my  heart,  nor  disgrace 
religion  by  vain  jangling.  With  the  help  of  God,  I  am  willing  to  defend  the 
truth  iis  held  up  to  view  in  the  propositions  referred  lo,  or  in  any  other  equita- 
ble form,  or  if  you  prefer  it,  with  no  form  at  all.  I  am  willing  to  meet  you 
with  no  other  words  before  us  than  "  The  subject  and  mode  of  Baptism." 

Although  you  have  made  no  parlicnlar  objection  to  my  questions,  1  have 
several  to  the  one  which  you  propose  in  your  epistle:  viz. "  Is  infant  affusion,  or 
• ...  .is  infent  Baptism  a  Divine  institution?"  I  have  the  same  objections  to  the 
proposition  discussed  by  you  and  Mr.  Walker, '  that  infant  Baptism  or  affusion 
is  a  divine  institution.'  1st.  These  propositions  confound  the  subject  and  the 
mode,  which  are  distinct  things,  and  which  may  be  so  exhibited  in  fewer 
words  as  in  the  end  of  the  last  paragraph.  2d  These  propositioas  encourage 
a  popular  misconception,  which  has  been  too  much  insisted  upon  by  our  ad- 
versaries ;  that  is,  that  we  hold  infant  Baptism  to  the  exclusion  of  believer's 
Baptism  ;  than  which  nothing  is  more  incorrect.  We  maintain  as  strenuously 
as  our  opposers,  the  administration  of  Baptism  to  believers;  but  we  differ  from 
them  in  this  proposition,  thai  faith  hi  the  subject  is  an  essential  qualification 
for  Baptism ;  or  which  is  the  same  thing,  we  are  willing  to  prove  that  Baptism 
should  be  administered  to  infants  as  well  as  to  their  believing  parents.  3d 
These  propositions  confine  us  within  narrower  bounds  with  regaid  to  the  mode, 
tha  we  in  good  conscience  occupy.  We  do  not  advocate  a  usion  exclusively; 
and  if  you  leave  this  woi-d  out  of  the  propositions,  they  are  confined  to  the 
subject  and  say  nothing  of  the  mode.  We  admit  of  washing  and  sprinklinj 
as  well  as  pouring,  and  we  even  acknowledge  the  lawfulness  of  dipping :  but 
we  deny  ihd^i  submersion  is  essential  to  Christian  Baptism,  and  you  affirm  that 
it  is.  Since  then  this  proposition  will  bring  us  directly  and  fairly  to  an  issue, 
why  should  you  make  it  a  condition  of  an  interview  that  we  should  assume 
ground  worse  than  that  which  we  in  truth  occupy. 

With  respect  to  your  9th  article  1  would  observe  that  the  people  will  al- 
ways let  us  know  when  they  have  heard  enough,  but  the  parties  should  be 
permitted  to  judge  when  they  have  said  enough.  In  your  5th  article  yoii 
claim  the  closing  address.  This  you  would  probably  have  without  any  stipu- 
lation, for  in  practice  1  am  not  tenacious,  but  I  see  no  reason  for  acknowledg- 
iog  your  superior  right.    In  the  conference  at  Mount-Pleasant  you  say  that 


@0 

"  as  Mr.  Walker  gave  the  challenge,  it  became  his  duty  to  open  the  debate." 
You  of  course  bad  the  privilege  of  closing'.  The  above  is  your  own  decla- 
ration ;  and  the  only  reason  which  you  give  for  making  it  Mr.  Walker's  duty 
±0  open  the  debate,  is  that  he  gave  the  challenge.  Now  the  case  is  altered, 
and  your  view  of  duty  seems  to  alter  with  it.  According  to  the  principle  and 
the  practice  stated  in  your  book,  As  Mr.  Campbell  has  given  the  challenge  it 
becomes  his  duty  to  open  the  debate,  and  mine  to  close :  but  according  to  the 
demand  of  your  letter,  you  must  close  whether  you  give  or  receive  a  chal- 
lenge:. Since  this  is  a  new  practice,  your  letter  gives  a  new  reason  for  it,  that 
is,  that  it  is  the  right  of  the  negative  to  close.  But  where  did  you  learn  this 
rule?  lamas  ignorant  of  its  origin  as  of  its  correctness.  This  rule  or  its 
opposite  would  in  doctrinal  disputes,  be  arbitrary  in  its  application.  The  same 
doctrinal  opinion  may  be  exhibited  equally  well  in  opposite  forms  of  expres- 
sion :  and  whether  the  proposition  be  affirmative  or  negative  the  same  proof 
would  be  required  on  both  sides.  Of  this  you  will  see  an  example  in  my  two 
letters.  In  ci^al  courts  and  in  the  courts  of  our  church  there  is  a  rule  on  this 
subject,  but  its  relates  to  matters  of  fact  in  judicial  cases,  and  not  to  doctrinal 
questions.  This  practice  is,  however  the  very  opposite  of  that  which  your 
letter  approves,  for  it  gives  to  the  affirmative  the  right  of  opening  and  closing. 
I  wish  not  to  take  advantage  of  this.  My  desire  is,  that  each  party  may  be 
heard  fairly  and  fully,  and  until  he  is  satisfied,  and  if  we  have  not  sense  enough 
to  quit  when  we  are  done,  the  people  will,  to  our  mortification,  give  their 
opinion  by  leaving  us. 

The  inequality  of  your  terms,  you  now  see,  is  the  only  impediment  to  our 
meeting.  This  it  is  hoped  you  will  relinquish,  not  only  for  justice  sake,  but 
because  it  is  in  direct  opposition  to  your  challenge.  You  there  say  "I  have 
♦'  to  add,  that  I  must  have  an  equal  vote  in  determining  the  time  and  place. 
"This  is  the  only  restriction  I  attach  to  the  challenge  I  now  publish."  There 
is  nothing  here  of  your  closing  the  debate  or  enjoying  any  other  privilege 
above  your  antagonist.  If,  however,  you  cannot  comply  with  these  fair  terms, 
I  have  only  one  other  plan  to  propose.  It  is  this.  We  will  agree  to  discuss 
the  very  proposition  which  you  have  offered  in  your  challenge.  As  this  is 
one  in  which  you  take  the  affirmative,  and  as  both  your  rules  however  con- 
tradictory and  unauthorised,  will  give  me  the  closmg  address,though  unsought, 
nothing  more  remams  now  to  be  settled  but  the  time  and  place,  which  are  the 
only  subjects  on  which  you  claim  a  vote,  (f  you  should  visit  this  place, 
I  would  endeavour  to  make  all  other  engagements  suit  your  convenience.  If 
you  should  prefer  some  other  place  where  I  could  procure  books,  or  to  which 
I  could  with  cheapness  and  convenience  convey  my  own,  such  as  Pittsburgh, 
Wheeling,  Steubenville,  Washmgton  in  Pennsylvania,  or  Washington  City, 
Baltimore  or  Philadelphia,  New-Haven  or  Boston,  I  should  likp  for  the 
time  to  be  shortly  before  or  after  the  General  Assembly,  which  convenes  in 
Philadelphia  on  the  third  Thursday  inMay,  and  sits  about  two  or  three  weeks. 
When  the  preliminaries  are  adjusted,  all  possible  publicity  may  be  given  to 
the  appointment  according  to  your  request.  If  it  be  your  choice  you  can 
send  a  notice  to  the  papers  of  Philadelphia  and  elsewhere,  that  "on  the  third 
"Monday  of  May,  1824,  Mr.  Alexander  Campbell  of  the  regular  Baptist 
''church,  and  Mr.  W.  L.  Maccalla  of  the  Presbyterian  church,  will,  {Deo 
^'volente)  discuss  the  foil  owing  proposition,  viz,  ^  Infant  sprinkling  is  ahuma 


"  tradition  and  injurious  to  the  well  being  of  society,  religious  and  political.* 
«  For  the  discussion  of  this  propositioa  the  formei  of  these  gentlemen  gave  a 
"general  challenge  to  Pedobaptist  ministeis." 

As  you  have  offered  a  system  of  rules  for  the  debate,  it  may  not  be  wrong 
for  me  to  do  the  same.  It  need  have  no  effect  upon  the  question  whether  we 
shall  meet.  They  are  not  made  conditions.  Words  in  brackets  are  consider- 
ed as  so  many  blanks. 

Rules  of  debate  adopted  and  signed  this  [16th  day  of  May,  1824,  in  the 
city  of  Philadelphia]  by  Alexander  Campbell,  and  W.  L.  Maccalla.  Dupli- 
cates given  to  the  parties. 

1.  The  proposition  for  discussion  shall  be  the  fallowing,  viz.  ["Infant 
sprinkling  is  a  human  tradition,  and  injurious  to  the  well  being  of  society,  re- 
ligious and  political,"] 

2.  Each  speaker  shall  be  entitled  to  an  alternate  address  of  thirty  minutes 
and  no  longer,  unless  the  other  party  weiive  his  right. 

3.  The  books  brought  forward  shall  be  equally  accessible  to  both  parties. 

4.  The  established  rules  of  decorum  must  be  observed. 

5.  The  discussion  shall  be  moderated  by  three  men;  each  q{  the  parties 
choosing  one,  and  these  two  a  third,  which  last  shall  belong  t©  no  religious 
society.     These  are  to  keep  order  and  not  to  decide  the  question. 

6.  The  debate  shall  be  opened  by  and  shall 
^God  willing)  commence  on  the  [I8th  inst.]  at  the 

Meeting-house  at  [9  o'clock,A.M.]  and  continue,  if  necessary,  until  [2  o'clock, 
P.  M.]  And  it  shall,  if  necessary,  be  continued  during  the  same  hours,  and  at 
the  same  place,  and  under  the  same  superintendance  (unless  altered  by  mu- 
tual agreement,)  from  day  to  day,  until  both  parties  are  satisfied. 

W.  L.  MACCALLA. 


No.  5. 
Mr.  Campbell  to  Mr.  M'Calla. 

Buffaloe  Printing-Qffice,  July  21st,  1823. 
Mr.  Maccalla, 

Sir — Your  letter  of  the  2d  inst.  but  post  marked  the  8th  inst.  came  to  hand 
yesterday.  It  seems  to  import  that  the  "terms  of  conference  may  not  be  so 
easily  adjusted,"  as  your  first  epistle  portended.  You  object  to  my  not  for- 
warding the  questions  promised.  My  sole  reason  \yas,  that  my  letter  was 
sulficiently  crowded  without  them.  Besides,  I  supposed  that  a  person  pro- 
posing to  discuss  a  subject  of  so  great  importance,  and  of  so  common  occur- 
rence, as  that  proposed  by  yourself,  could  be  at  no  loss  to  answer  any 
question  connected  therewith.  If  I  had  proposed  to  send  you  twenty-one 
questions  on  any  other  subject,  than  that  proposed  by  yourself,  or  if  I  had 
proposed  to  give  you  no  information  of  them  until  the  day  of  debate ;  your 
objection  would  have  been  relevant  and  cogent ;  but  as  the  circumstances  are, 
it  appears  irrelevant  and  futilf;.  I  should  never  have  proposed  to  discuss  a 
subject,  on  which  twenty-one  questions  could  be  proposed,  that  after  two 
months  deliberation,  I  would  fear  to  encounter.    So  little  attention  to  yoOr 


twenty-one  questions  has  been  paid  by  myself,  that  were  I  now  asked  whai 
they  are,  I  coald  not,  from  recollection,  mention  the  half  of  them.  On  reading 
them  once  or  twice,  1  saw  the  drift  of  them,  and  apprehended  the  peculiar 
turn  of  reflection  that  dictated  them.  With  a  very  little  reflection,  1  found 
myself  able  to  answer  each  of  them  with  a  yea  or  a  nay,  -with  perhaps  a  very 
little  explanation  in  one  or  two  instances. 

Though,  you  say,  I  have  made  no  particular  objection  to  your  questions, 
you  have  several  to  the  one  which  [  proposed.  iSow,  sir,  were  I  to  be  so 
captious,  or  so  precise  in  objecting,  as  you  seem  to  be,  we  would  not  settle  the 
preliminaries  in  a  year.  The  fact  is,  I  had  many  objections  to  your  questions, 
as  being  inconsequential,  confused,  far  fetched,  and  inapplicable  to  the  faith  or 
practice  of  christians,  as  respects  christian  Baptism.  Yet  knowing  the  pecu- 
liar delicacy  of  the  feelings,  and  the  keen  sensibility  of  the  conscience  of 
Paido-baptist  teachers  in  general,  on  such  topics  as  those  contained  in  your 
queries,  1  made  no  objection  to  any  of  them  lest  it  should  retard  our  meeting ; 
but  thought  it  best  to  stipulate,  for  the  privilege  of  proposing  an  equal  num- 
ber. ' 

You  have  favored  me  vdth  three  objections  to  my  one  question.  It  was 
well  I  did  not  propose  propose  twenty-one.  The  cogency  of  your  three  ob- 
jections I  confess  myself  too  duU  to  apprehend.  One  thing  appears  pretty  plain 
that  you  conceive  the  question — "  Is  infant  affusion  or  Baptism  a  Divine  in- 
stitution," obliges  you,  as  you  express  it,  "  to  assume  worse  ground  than  that 
which  in  truth  you  occupy."  This  would  indeed,  be  unreasonable,  to  make 
your  ground  of  defence  "tcon^e"  than  it  is.  But  while  you  allow  believer's 
Baptism  to  be  a  Divine  institution,  and  while  you  practice  infant  afl"usion, 
you  maintain  that  to  be  a  Divine  institution  also.  Why  then  object  to  defend 
the  precise  tiling  which  you  practise  ?  And  to  say  you  do  not  always  practise 
it,  is  nothing  to  the  merits  of  the  question  ;  for,  inasmuch,  as  you  sometimes 
practise  it,  as  a  Divine  institution,  it  behoves  you,  for  one  such  occasion  to  be 
able  to  prove  it  to  be  a  Divine  institution.  And  if  the  whole  proposition  can- 
not be  proven — viz.  that  infant  affusion  is  a  Divine  institution,  to  cut  it  into 
pieces,  and  to  divide  into  words,  syllables,  vowels,  or  consonants,  and  prove  it 
in  piece-meal,  wiU,  every  Logician  knows,  avail  nothing. 

With  regard  to  who  shall  open,  and  who  close  the  debate,  I  had 
thouo-ht  that  my  statemant  of  the  attendant  circumstances  of  my  giving  the 
challenge  alluded  to,  would  have  prevented  such  reasons  as  you  assign  for 
differino-  from  me  on  that  item.  My  stating  that  it  behoved  Mr.  Walker  to  open 
the  debate  from  the  circumstance  of  his  having  given  the  challange  was  true, 
as  far  as  it  went,  but  it  was  also  true,  that  his  having  the  affirmative  side  of 
the  question  was  that  which  rendered  his  commencement  essentially  necessa- 
ry. In  this  controversy  Baptists  have  nothing  to  prove  as  respects  their  prac- 
tice. Paido-baptists  agree  with  them,  that  a  disciple  immersed  on  a  profes- 
sion of  the  christian  faith,  has  received  christian  baptism.  Our  practice  then 
is  correct,  in  this  respect,  Paido-baptists  themselves  being  judges.  They 
blame  us  for  omitting  to  Baptize  infants,  but  not  for  what  we  do,  consequent- 
ly it  is  they  who  have  to  prove  their  practice,  and  it  is  our  duty  to  show  that 
their  arguments  are  inconclusive.  In  every  controversy  then  with  Paido-bap- 
tists, upon  this  topic,  they  affirm  and  we  deny,  they  ifimi  ,<;onijafmfi<;  ^od  vie 


23 

respond.  But  you  profess  to  be  i^orant  of  the  origin  of  this  rule  of  practice, 
I  say  it  originates  in  the  Jilness  of  things,  and  is  supported  by  long  prescrip- 
tion. For  precedent  and  for  proof  of  its  antiquity,  I  refer  to  the  era  of  the 
Reformation.  In  t'.e  famous  disputes  at  Leipsic  between  Eckius,  Lxither,  and 
Carolostadius,  June  27th,  1519.  Eckius  gave  the  challenge,  took  the  affirma- 
tive, and  opened  the  debate  with  Carolostadius.  On  the  4th  of  July,  1519, 
Eckius  mantains  the  pojie's  supreme  authority,  Luther  denies  it,  Eckius  opens 
the  debate,  and  Luther  closes.  The  same  took  place  at  Baden,  in  May  1526, 
between  (Ecolampadius  and  Eckius.     In  the  dispute  between  Luther  and 

(Ecolampadius  concerning  the  "  real  presence,''^  Luther  affirms  and  CEcolampa- 
dius  denies,  Luther  commences  and  (Ecolampadius  responds.  See  many  other 
instances  from  page  102  to  200,  Du  Pin's  Ecclesiastical  His(ory,vol.  3rf. 

In  the  last  place  on  this  head,  you  allege  that  the  possibility  of  converting 
an  affirmative  proposition  into  a  negative,  renders  such  a  rule  of  procedure  of 
Tery  doubtful  application.  I  admit  that  the  negative  proposition  "  infant  af- 
fusion is  not  a  Divine  institution,^''  may  be  converted  into  an  affirmative,  thus, 
infant  affusion  is  a  human  tradition;  yet  the  nature  of  things  will  not  change 
with  the  words  we  may  choose  to  represent  them.  Still  the  grand  predicate 
"  Divine  institution'''  is  denied  of  the  subject  "  infant  affusion,''^  and  the  grand 
truth  in  pursuit  of  which  the  investigation  proceeds,  is  denied  of  the  subject 
of  the  proposition  which,  ac<?ording  to  my  views,  will  force  the  proposition 
into  the  form  of  a  direct  negative  in  the  discussion. 

I  contend  for  this  rule  of  procedure,  then,  on  the  ground  of  the  fitness  of 
things,  and  on  the  ground  of  long  prescription  in  theological  discussions. 

I  am  willing  to  change  the  time  proposed  for  holding  the  conference  from  the 
1st  to  Wednesday  the  15th  of  October.  Later  than  that  period,  I  cannot 
think  would  be  expedient  to  defer  our  interview,  as  the  weather  will  then  be 
,  precarious,  and  the  days  short.  Owing  to  the  meeting  of  our  Association, 
which  I  am  under  the  necessity  of  attending,  I  could  not,  with  any  degree  of 
propriety,  promise  to  attend  sooner  than  the  first  of  October .  And  as  you 
were  so  kind  in  mentioning  New-Haven,  Boston,  New- York,  and  Philadelphia; 
I  think  for  exhibiting  to  better  advantage  your  very  accommodating  disposi- 
tion, you  should  hav«  mentioned  London,  Dublin,  or  Ghent;  as  water  conve- 
niences, and  plenty  of  books  equally  recommend  those  places.  I  will  how- 
ever be  still  more  accommodating  than  you,  for  I  will  go  to  your  own  village 
as  aforesaid. 

I  will  now  propose  you  twenty-one  questions,  andjthus  prevent  all  further 
«[emur  on  this  ground. 

1.  What  is  the  doctrinal  import  of  christian  Baptism  .* 

2.  Are  any  infants  members  of  the  christian  church  ? 

3.  Are  infants  members  of  the  christian  church  by  natural  birth  or  Baptism? 

4.  Is  the  Abrahamic  church  a  branch  of  the  Noahic  church?  or  in  other 
words,  were  the  patriarchs,  before  Moses,  and  the  Jews  after  Moses,  on  eandthe 
same  church  in  different  dispensations  ? 

5.  Was  the  sacrificial  rite,  before  Moses,  and  circumcision,  after  Moses,  on* 
and  the  same  seal  in  substance,  though  in  different  forms  ? 

6.  Was  the  church  at  Jerusalem,  at  Rome,  at  Corinth,  at  Samaria,  or  the 
first  geatile  church  at  Cesarea,  a  Baptist,  or  a  Faido-baptist  church  ? 


24 

7.  What  benefit  does  an  infant  receive  from  Baptism  ? 

8.  Does  Baptism  represent,  seal  and  apply  any  thing  to  an  infant  ? 

9.  Does  Baptism  become  an  effectual  means  of  salvation  to  an  infant? 

10.  Is  not  the  present  enjoyment  of  all  the  benefits  and  blessings  of  the 
New-Testament  confined  to  believers  ? 

11.  Have  not  parents  a  right  to  Baptize  their  own  infants,  as  tlie  Jews 
circumcised  theirs  ? 

12.  Ought  not  all  the  household  of  a  believer,  his  slaves,  and  their  children 
to  be  Baptized  on  the  profession  of  his  faith  ? 

13.  Ought  not  infants  to  be  Baptized  the  eighth  day? 

14.  Ought  infant  females  to  be  Baptized,  contrary  to  the  law  of  circumci- 
sion ? 

15.  Ought  not  Baptized  infants  to  be  admitted  to  the  Supper? 

16.  Are  infants  under  any  vow  or  obligation  from  Baptism  ? 

17.  Were  infants  members  of  the  patriarchal  church? 

18.  Can  there  be  a  Baptism  suited  to  infants,  without  faith,  and  a  Baptisn^ 
suited  to  believers,  and  yet,  but  one  Baptism  ? 

19.  What  is  the  action  of  Baptism  ? 

20.  Did  the  Apostles  either  Rantize  or  Baptize  infants .' 

21..  Is  there  a  command  in  all  the  Bible  to  Rantize,  or  Baptize  infants  ?     . 

These  questions  I  arrange  on  the  principle  of  correspondencies,  to  be  a  pep 
contra  to  those  you  have  proposed,  as  far  as  the  answers  apprehended  would 
come  into  contact.  But,  sir,  neither  your  twenty-one  questions  nor  mine,  ar® 
the  best  course  to  come  t©  a  fair  and  clear  issue.  They  afford  us  themes  of 
copious  verbosity,  and  would,  no  doubt,  in  the  end,  aff'^rdto  all  intelligent  and 
impartial  hearers,  sufficient  data,  to  judge  on  what  side  truth  lay.  But  it  is 
like  walking  nine  miles,  to  come  to  a  point  accessible  in  one,  and  that,  merely 
for  the  sake  of  showing  our  dexterity  in  walking.  Did  I,  from  my  soul,  de- 
sire to  investigate  the  subject  for  my  own  good,  and  to  exhibit  it  for  the  good 
of  others  ;  or  did  I  cordially  wish  to  help  a  fellow  disciple  out  ef  the  mire,  or 
to  be  helped  myself;  I  would  calmly,  in  the  fear  of  God,  with  humility  of  mind, 
and  pure  benevolence  to  yourself,  and  all  others,  who  may  be  present  on  the 
occasion ;  and  with  all  openness  to  conviction,  propose  four  questions  only  for 
discussion. — One  of  these  I  conceive  to  be  of  great  consequence,  not  only  as 
respects  baptism,  but  the  whole  exhibition  of  the  christian  religion. 

1.  Were  the  Jews  in  their  corporate  state,  whether  called  national  or  ec- 
clesiastical, an  association,  the  same  as  the  Christian  Church  ? — This  topic  I 
would  propose  as  a  mere  introduction  to  the  subject  primarily  in  view — theo 

2.  What  is  the  doc{rinal  import  of  Baptism  ? 

3.  Who  is  the  proper  subject  ? 

4.  What  is  the  proper  action  ? 

As  these  questions  equally  comprehend  the  substance  of  your  twenty-one 
questions  and  mine  ;  I  feel  perfectly  agreed,  if  you  are,  to  investigate  these  in 
the  fullest  manner,  by  every  possible  means  of  illustration,  and  to  confine  the 
whole  controversy  to  them.  As  I  have  dwelt  chiefly  on  that  article  of  ar- 
rangement, which  you  seem  to  make  of  the  greatest  consequence,  I  have  na 
room  to  say  any  thing  of  the  other  eight  items.  They  still  appear  to  me  pre- 
ferable to  any  alterations  you  hare  proposed.    But  in  case  of  your  refusing;  to 


25 

accede  to  these  rules  of  procedure,  I  have  to  propose  that  the  three  persona 
who  shall  sit  as  moderators,  shall  meet  the  day  preceding  our  conference,  and 
that  they  shall,  after  having  heard  read  in  their  hearing  our  whole  correspond- 
ence, decide,  both  what  questions  shall  be  discussed,  and  in  what  manner.  I 
will  pledge  myself  to  comply  with  their  decisions.  This  I  think  ought  to  be  sa- 
tisfactory, if  the  rules  adopted  by  the  committee,  preceding  the  debat«  at  Mount 
Pleasant  will  not  please  you.  I  have  only  to  request,  that  this  epistle  be  an- 
swered as  promptly  as  I  have  answered  yours  ;  and  that  you  would  excuse 
this  hasty  scroll,  I  was  interrupted  twenty  times  since  I  sat  down  to  write  it. 
Very  respectfully  your's, 

A.  CAMPBELL. 


No,  6.  \y^.  ^^  '<i 


V 


M^,  -6>   '^^ 


M'Calla  to  Campbell. 


./Jvgi/.ttrt,  Ky.  August  8lh,  1823. 
Mr.  CAMPJimr.r,— In  the  progress  of  our  correspondence,  it  is  a  pleasure  td 
Jne  to  remember  that  this  controversy  is  not  one  of  my  own  seeking.  Mine  is 
•a  defensive  attitude.  Your  challenge  was  bold,  public  £uid  general :  neither 
did  it  exhibit  on  its  face  the  least  design  to  take  advantage  of  any  stripling 
who  migb'i  ill  the  faith  of  Israel's  God,  step  out  to  meet  you.  You  did  not 
■enumerite  rules  of  debate -you  did  not  prescribe  weapons  to  your  antag- 
onist^  you  did  not  lay  down  what  he  was,  and  what  he  was  not  to  defend— 

yoa  did  not  require  the  last  blow  as  a  sine  qua  non  to  an  encounter ;  but  you 
pimply  stated  what  you  would  undertake  to  prove,  and  left  your  oppcaient  to 
choose  his  own  position,  to  which  he  certainly  has  a  right.  You  expressly  re- 
nounced all  other  restrictions  to  your  challenge,  except  the  right  of  an  equal 
vote  as  to  the  time  and  place  of  meeting.  Two  years  after  the  publication  of 
the  debate,  you  reiterate  your  defiance,  without  adding  any  farther  condition. 
In  the  first  page  of  your  strictures  on  Father  Ralston's  Review,  after  compljiin- 
ing  that  Mr.  Walker's  friends  under-rated  his  talents,  you  add  "  who  on  his  side 
"  of  the  question,  since  or  before  that  debate,  has  done  better ''  or  who  can  do 

♦'  better Is  there  no  man  in  all  the  hosts  of  Pedo-baptists  of  greater  ca- 

"  pacity  and  industry  than  ]V^r.  Walker  ?  If  there  be,  let  the  cause  be  main- 
"  tained,  and  let  not  Mr,  W.  bear  all  the  blame,  as  if  the  whole  cause  rested 
*'  on  him."  While  thus  bravely  exulting  over  our  armies,  who,  (as  you  imag- 
ined,) were  panic  struck  at  your  superior  prowess,  why  did  you  not  inform  us 
that  besides  an  equal  vote  in  the  time  and  place,  you  must  choose  the  position 
and  weapons  of  your  opponent,  and  that  in  addition  to  this,  you  must  have 
the  last  fire  ?  Wliy  did  you  not  tell  us  that  you  must  have  exclusive  privi- 
leges, and  not  only  choose  your  own  the?e;,  but  you  must  ^Iso  indite  the  iden- 
tical words  which  we  are  to  defend,  although,  in  our  conception,  they  may 
comitenance  errors  which  our  soUls  abhor.  With  an  invitation  thus  restrict- 
ed, I  have  never  complied,  for  such  an  one  Wiw  never  given ;  but,  remember^ 
sir,  that  the  challenge  actually  published  bv  yourself,  has  been  accepted,  with 
its  accompanying  condition. 

Although  I  cannot,  admit  the  right  of  an  antagonist  to  direct  what  I  shall  de- 
fend, yet  when  he  gives  a  reason  for  preferring  one  proposition  to  another,  I 
am  willing  to  list«n.    Some  of  your  reasons  are  as  follows :  "  Why  then  object 

D 


*«  to  defend  the  precise  thing  which  you  practise  ?.....  And  if  the  whole  pre- 
"position  oarmot  he  proven^viz.  that  infant  affusion  is  a  Divine  institution,  to 
*  cut  it  into  pieces,  and  to  divide  it  into  words,  syllables,  vowels  or  consonants, 
"and  prove  it  in  piece-meal,  will,  every  logician  knows,  avail  nothing."  To 
your  quesion  I  answer,  that  I  am  willing  to  defend  the  precise  thing  which  I 
practise.  I  practise  the  Baptism  of  believers  and  their  seed;  whereas  I  am  sor- 
ry to  observe  that  you  wish  the  world  to  think  that  these  two  stand  in  opposi= 
tion  to  each  other.  I  practise  aspersion,  though  I  equally  approve  of  ablution 
and  affusion;  yet  I  am  not  willing  to  defend  the  latter  to  the  exclusion  of  the  for- 
mer, nor  even  in  oppugnation  of  immersion.  In  your  remark  concerning  the 
cutting  of  a  proposition  into  pieces,  I  scarcely  know  whether  to  consider  you 
in  earnest.  It  is  hardly  possible  that  I  can  have  the  honor  of  giving  you  the 
first  information  that  some  questions  maybe  divided,  and  that  this  is  practised 
by  all  eminent  deliberative  bodies,  whether  ecclesiastical  or  political.  Do 
you  think  it  derogatory  to  the  logical,  or  grammatical,  or  rhetorical  character 
of  the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  that  their  ninth  rule  says,  "If  the  question 
*•  in  debate  contain  severjll  points,  any  member  may  have  the  same  divided." 
You  will  agree,  it  is  to  be  hoped,  that  the  subject  anii  the  mode  of  Baptism  are 
distinct  points,  and  that  the  question  may  be  so  divided,  without  making  each 
Word,  syllable  and  letter,  a  distinct  subject  of  discussion. 

Much  of  your  letter  is  spent  to  establish  your  claims  to  the  grj.nd  desidera- 
tum, the  last  speech.  The  fitness  of  things  and  long  prescription  Lre  the  two 
pillars  u  pon  Which  your  fabric  rests.  These,  you  say,  give  to  the  negative  the 
right  of  closing.  The  negative,  therefore,  you  are  determined  to  have.  2.ecol- 
lecting,  however,  that  you  have  to  take  the  affirmative  of  the  proposition  con- 
tained in  your  challenge,  you  bring  the  fitness  of  things,  or  (as  you  there  call  ft) 
the  nature  of  things,  to  a  bearing  upon  the  affirmative  proposition,  "  Infant  af 
fusion  is  a  human  tradition ;"  and  you  shew,  or  think  you  shew,  that  it  *'  wili 
force  the  proposition  into  the  form  of  a  direct  negative  in  the  discussion."  If  you 
can  force  an  affirmative  into  a  negative  in  order  to  secure  the  closing 
speech,  it  seems  to  me  that  very  little  more  force  would  prove  that  I  ought 
not  to  speak  at  all.  This  additional/orce  is  probably  the  very  thing  which  cau- 
sed Bishop  Gunning  of  England,  a  hundreid  and  fifty  years  ago,  td  deny  those 
whom  he  had  challenged,  the  liberty  of  replying. 

In  establishing  a  right  upon  the  ground  of  prescription,  you  are  aware  that 
tht  custom  must  be  made  to  appear,  for  this  purpose  you  refer  me  to  cer-» 
tain  nameless  occurrences  in  Du  Pin's  Ecclesiastical  History,  vol.  III.  p.  p« 
102—200.  "Will  you  be  so  kind  as  to  send  mfe  so  particular  a  reference  that 
the  place  may  be  found  in  the  London  edition  of  1698,  as  that  contains  noth« 
ing  of  the  sort^ia  the  pages  marked,  and  the  index  refers  to  no  conferences  ex- 
cept those  of  Cartilage  and  Jerusalem,  p.  p.  220,  321.  The  latter,  A.  D.  415, 
has  nothing  lo  the  parpcxse.  Neither  has  the  former,  which  occurred  four 
years  sooner,  except  that  i\ie  long  disputes  of  the  Donatists  about  the  quali- 
ties of  opposers  and  defenders,  may  appear  to  authorize  the  pertinacity  of 
some  with  regard  to  the  privileges  conferred  by  affirmatives  and  negatives. 
At  last  Augustine  obliged  them  to  come  to  the  main  question,  which  waa^ 
•'  Where  was  the  Catholic  Church?"  The  Donatists  opened  and  Augustine 
clblibdi  35'othing  cm.  be  gathered  from  such  facts,  unless  the  fitnesi  cf  thing* 
etei  elf^att  a  fkVcirable  cb'ncli^'ion. 


27 

If  we  had  SeckendorTs  History  of  Lutheranism,  and  Loscherus'a  Acta  and 
Documents  of  the  Reformation  referred  to  in  Maclaine'a  Mosheim  (4.  44. 
Chariest,  ed.  1811,)  we  might  possibly  obtain  some  satisfaction  on  the  other 
cases  referred  to.  Dm  Pin  is  the  only  author  whom  you  quote,  and  in  the  ve- 
ry short  abstract  which  he  gives,  in  half  a  page,  of  the  dispute  between  Eckiui 
and  Carolostadius,  which  occupied  a  week,  there  is  no  account  of  the  number 
or  order  of  their  speeches.  He  does  not  expressly  tell  us  who  closed,  or  for 
what  reason.  The  debate  which  immediately  followed  between  Eckius  and 
Luther,  was  professedly  on  twenty-six  propositions,  half  of  them  produced  by 
each  of  the  disputants,  not  dictated  by  one  to  the  other.  This  debate  is  di- 
vided by  Du  Pin  into  a  number  of  conferences.  Several  of  the  first  were 
occupied  in  discussing  the  supremacy  of  the  Pope,  the  subject  to  which  your 
letter  refers.  You  say,  that  Eckius,  having  the  aifirmative,  opened  the  de- 
bate. Du  Pin's  narrative  would  encourage  the  belief  that  Luther  opened. 
You  say  that  Luther  closed.  Du  Pin  intimates  that  Eckius  closei  the  first 
conference,  and  does  not  give  the  least  hint  who  it  was  that  clos*d  the  whole 
dispute  on  this  topic.  On  the  subject  of  indulgences,  Eckiu?  took  the  affir- 
mative as  before,  and  if  Du  Pin's  abstracts  give  any  informaJon  on  this  point, 
Eckius  both  opened  and  closed.  Although  he  was  so  remarkable  for  voice 
and  gesture,  for  information  and  readiness  of  utterance,  he  was  exceedingly 
fond  of  this  same  privilege  of  opening  and  closing.  -Like  Charles  I.  in  hia 
paper  controversy  with  the  noble  Henderson,  he  anfeared  to  think  this  a  pri- 
vilege due  to  his  dignity.  He  obtained  it  in  a  conference  with  Melancthon  at 
Ratisbon,  as  we  are  informed  in  a  letter  fro!<i  Strasburg  by  Calvin  to  Farel. 
And  if,  according  to  Luther,  as  quoted  by  Seckendorf,  and  from  him  by  Mil- 
nor,  (4:346)  Eckius  took  another  more  ungenerous  advantage  of  Carolstadt 
in  the  conference  above  mentioned,  I  have  no  doubt  that  he  both  opened  and 
closed  in  that  contest ;  although  Du  Pin,  a  popish  writer,  has  mentioned  neith- 
er of  these  advantages.  This  author  gives  no  information  about  the  closing 
epeech  at  Baden,  although  you  say  that  Eckius  opened  and  (Ecolampadiut 
closed.  The  same  may  be  said  of  the  conference  at  Berne,  which  occurred 
December  I7th,  1527.  At  Marpurgh,  (if  that  be  the  other  instance  to  which 
you  refer)  Luther  produced  five  articles  of  exception  against  the  doctrine  of 
the  Zuinglians,  of  whom  CEcolampadius  was  one.  Du  Pin  does  not  positively 
say  who  opened  and  closed,  but  from  his  narrative  1  should  draw  a  conclusion 
the  very  opposite  of  yours.  It  is  a  wonder  that  you  did  not  add  to  this  case  a 
similar  one  which  occurred  at  Lambeth  in  England,  about  the  year  1584.  It 
was  a  kind  of  conference  between  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury  and  the 
Bishop  of  Winchester  on  the  one  part,  and  Dr.  Spark  and  Mr.  Travers  on  the 
other.  The  latter  gentlemen  produced  articles  of  exception  against  the  church 
of  England.  The  second  of  these  was  on  Baptism.  They  objected  to  pri- 
vate and  lay  Baptism, — to  their  view  of  its  absolute  necessity  and  infallible 
efficacy, — to  certain  superstitious  interrogatories,  and  the  use  of  the  cross. 
(Toulmin's  Neal,  1.422.)  Although  I  see  no  evidence  of  any  privilege  given 
to  the  negative,  I  have  no  doubt  that  much  might  be  obtained  by  that  perspi. 
cacity  which  has  discovered  such  wonders  in  the  foregoing  instances. 

If  I  am  not  as  ignorant  ol  arithmetic  as  yoa  think  me  to  be  of  logic,  the 
questions  contained  in  your  letters  and  the  appendix  to  your  debate  amount 
to  one  hundred  and  thirty-five.    I  am  willing  that  you  shall  appear  on  the 


seene  of  conflict  with  all  these,  and  1  am  willing  to  meet  you  with  the  tiro' 
following  or  similar  propositions,  1st.  Faith  is  not  essential  to  Baptism.  2*i, 
Submersion  is  not  essential  to  Baptism.  You  would  then  have  room  to  dis- 
play your  wit  on  the  number  and  character  of  my  questions,  and  I  would 
have  an  opportunity  of  giving  my  opinion  of  your  one  hundred  and  thirty- 
five  questions.  Remember,  however,  my  former  proposals  to  meet  you  oq 
the  bale  subject  and  mode,  and  my  agreement  to  meet  you  on  the  proposition 
contained  in  your  chedlenge,  and  the  condition  therein  expressed. 

W.  L.  MACCALLA. 


No.  7. 
Mr.  Campbell  to  Mr.  M 'Calls. 

July  Uth,  1823. 
Mr.  ^accalla, 

Sir — ^l-vrote  you  on  the  16th  ult.  an  answer  to  your  favor  of  May  last ; 
I  also  addressee  a  letter  on  the  same  subject  to  Dr.  Keith.     To  these  commu- 
nications I  have  joceived  no  reply.    A  letter  having  become  due  before  this 
date,  I  feel  anxious  "^^o  know,  whether  my  letter  was  received,  and  whether 
you  have  answered  i^.     I  would  send  a  copy  of  my  reply  per  tbe  bearer,  but 
time  forbids,  as  he  is  nuy  on  his  way.     You  will  please  inform  me  on  Mr. 
Logan's  arrival,  whether  ny  letter  was  received. — And  if  you  should  have 
written  a  reply,  at  a  date  aphorizing  me  to  have  received  it,  you  must  con- 
sider your  letter  as  miscarried,  ^nd  will,  therefore,  have  the  goodness  to  write 
again ;  as  my  business  and  arrangements  requiie  me  to  know  results  as  soob 
as  possible.    Respectfully  your's 

A.  CAMPBELL. 

No.   8. 
Mr.  M'Callato  Mr.  Campbell. 

Mr.  Campbell, Your  letter  of  the  14th  inst,  sent  by  Mr.  Logan* 

was  received  yesterday  at  church,  and  of  course  not  opened  until  this  morn- 
ing.    If  my  former  one  obtained  as  speedy  a  passage  as  this  of  your's,  it  must 
have  arrived  on  the  day  of  your  writing ;  and  but  for  the  late  departure  of 
the  mail,  much  sooner.     As  correspondence  with  this  place  by  mail  is  gene- 
rally tedious,  it  is  probable  that  my  letter  has  not  yet  miscarried.     If  it  ar- 
rive, you  will  find  that  I  am  willing,  with  the  help  of  God,  to  meet  you  oa 
fair  and  practicable  terms,  in  any  city  in  America,  and  I  may  add,  in  England, 
Scotland  or  Ireland.     But  your  terms  I  decline,  for  the  present,  because  they 
are  unfair  and  inconsistent.    The  only  condition  annexed  to  your  public  invi- 
tation, was  that  you  should  have  an  equal  vote  in  determining  the  time  and 
place.    After  I  had  accepted  your  challenge,  as  you  expressly  called  it,  you 
add  in  your  letter  to  me,  as  another  condition,  that  you  must  have  the  last 
gpeech,  although  the  fact  of  Mr.  Walker's  giving  the  challenge,  was  the 
reason  which  you  gave  for  your  having  the  last  speech  at  Mount-Pleasant. 
You  appear  to  think  with  the  lawyers,  that  the  last  speech  is  a  matter  of 
some  importance,  and  that  it  must  be  gained,  if  possible,  whether  you  give  or 
receive  a  challenge,  and  whether  you  assume  the  affirmative  or  the  negative 
of  the  proposition  in  dispute. 


29 

You  do  not  object  to  the  discussion  of  the  questions  which  I  sent  to  you, 
and  therefore  suggest  the  propriety  of  having  the  meeting  notified  to  the 
public  forthwith.  Yet  your  letter  is  so  constructed  that  you  would  consider 
this  publication  a  virtual  agreement  on  my  part  to  discuss  an  equal  number  of 
questions  written  by  yourself,  which  I  have  never  seen,  and  to  which  I  might 
have  very  serious  objections,  after  seeing  them.  My  desire  is,  that  with  the 
grace  of  Christ  in  my  heart,  my  lips  may  be  consecrated  to  the  defence  of 
truth  and  righteousness.  He  who  disputes  from  ambition  or  ostentation,  may 
promise  you  a  debate  at  random :  but  shew  me  the  questions  first,  as  I  have 
shewn  you  mine,  and  I  hope  that  God  will  direct  me  to  a  suitable  answer. 

If  you  cannot  agree  to  discuss  my  questions  without  obtrusive  conditions 
and  if  after  examining  your  questions,  I  should  not  approve  of  them,  the  pro- 
posal of  my  letter  was,  that  we  sheuld  discuss  "/Ae  subject  and  the  mode  ofBap- 
tism'^  without  any  question,  or  that  we  should  meet  upon  the  proposition  con- 
tained in  your  challenge,  to  the  discussion  of  which  you  have  dared  the  Pedo- 
baptist  world.  As  you  gave  the  challenge,  and  as  you  take  the  afl5rmative  of 
your  own  proposition,  both  your  rules  give  to  me  the  closing  speech.  This 
however,  my  letter  does  not  ask,  but  requests  that  both  parties  may  have  li- 
berty to  speak  until  they  are  satisfied. 

As  Dr.  Keith  by  showing  your  correspondence  with  him  to  the  citizens,  has 
made  it  public,  it  is  not  improper  for  me  to  observe  that  it  was  premature  in 
you  to  tell  him  that  your  proposals  could  not  be  manfully  or  justly  rejected 
by  me.  I  am  informed  that  in  his  answ^  he  has  represented  me  as  a  forward 
enemy  of  the  Baptists,  and  as  disposed  to  retreat  from  this  controversy.  No 
person  acquainted  with  the  state  of  things  here, could  expect  him  to  give  me  a 
favorable  character.  I  am  constitutionally  timid,  but  I  hope  that  through 
grace,  I  am  not  malicious.  This  same  grace  has  also  strengthened  my  heart 
against  the  fear  of  man,  so  that  although  I  have  not  the  talents  and  prepara- 
tion to  be  desired  in  such  a  controversy,  I  am  willing  to  trust  in  the  Lord,  and 
encounter  even  the  hero  of  Mount-Pleasant.  At  least  the  question,  who  has 
acted  manfully  and  generously  ?  and  who  wishes  to  retreat?  will  one  day  be 
submitted  to  the  judgment  of  the  United  States, 

W.  L.  MACCALLA, 
Augusta.,  July  2\st,  1823. 


No.  9. 
Mr.  Campbell  to  Mr.  M'Calla. 

Buffaloe  Creek,  August  23rf,  1823. 
Mr.  Maccalla, 

Sir — Your's  of  the  8th  inst.  was  received  last  night.  It  differs  very  much 
both  in  spirit  and  style  from  your  first.  In  your  first  you  objected  to  meeting  me 
on  the  bare  ground  of  my  challenge  ;  saying  that  I  should  not  understand  you 
as  professing  a  willingness  to  confer  with  me  on  the  truth  or  falsehood  of  the 
statement  in  my  proclamation ;  "  That  infant  sprinkling  is  a  human  tradition, 
and  injurious  to  the  well-being  of  society  religious  and  political."  You  then 
proposed  twenty-one  questions.  In  your  next  you  complained  of  the  one 
question  I  proposed,  and  because  I  had  not  sent  you  the  twenty-one  questions, 
I  then  promised  to  send.    In  my  next,  I  sent  you  twenty-one  questions,  and 


also  proposed  reducing  the  topics  to  four  questions.   In  your  last,  you  profess  a 
willingness  to  be  off  both  from  your  own  twenty-one  questions  and  mine ;  and 
agree  to  meet  me  on  the  bare  words  of  my  challenge,  or  on  two  propositions, 
both  negativut  and  thus  to  force  me  to  give  you  the  last  speech.    In  my  first, 
I  proposed  rules  of  conference  similar  to  those  framed  at  Mount- Pleasant,  to 
expedite  our  interview,  and  to  regulate  our  discussion.    To  those  you  object 
as  inequitable.    I  proposed  in  my  last,  that  if  the  rules  I  had  proposed,  should 
not  meet  your  approbation,  as  yours  had  not  met  with  mine,  the  three  mo- 
derators should  decide,  both  the  questions  to  be  discussed,  and  the  manner  of 
discussing  them,  and  pledge  myself  to  abide  by  their  decission.    Of  this  you 
take  no  notice ;  but  very  gravely  and  generously  proceed  to  accuse  me  with 
departing  from  my  challenge ;  as  offering  new  conditions ;  and  appending  a 
sine  qua  non  to  them.    This,  I  was  about  to  say,  is  worse  than  the  quibbling 
of  school-boys.    You  should   anticipate  that  there  is  a  probability  of  our 
correspondence  meeting  the  public  eye ;  and  that  whatever  your  design  may 
be  in  throwing  obstacles  in  the  way,  it  will,  perhaps,  appear  as  though  you 
wished  to  be  off  from  the  conference  forever.    It  certainly  strikes  me  so. 
Otherwise,  why,  in  the  name  of  common  sense,  would  you  object  to  me,  as 
proposing  terms  of  conference,  as  a  sine  qua  non,  when  /  proposed  to  refer  the 
whole  matter  to  men,  and  to  submit  to  their  rules?    If  this  is  inequitable,-all 
arbitrations  and  references  are  inequitable.  If  this  is  inequitable,  and  my  rules 
are  alsp  inequitable,  then  it  follows  that  your  rules  are  equitable,  or  that  they 
must  be  so  considered :  at  least,  they  are  such  as  please  you  better  than  those 
you  would  expect  from  a  committee.    Moreover,  while  you  talk  so  much  of 
my  proposing  questions  and  theses  for  you,  you  should  remember  that  you 
began  by  proposing  questions  for  me ;  for  had  you,  at  first,  proposed  to  meet 
me  on  the  ground  of  my  challenge,  and  the  subject  matter  of  it,  I  should  never 
have  proposed  any  questions  at  all.    You  have,  or  appear  to  have,  the  rare 
talent  of  committing  faults,  and  of  charging  them  on  another.    You  project  a 
course,  and  when  I  follow  you,  you  gravely  censure  me  as  departing  from  my 
printed  challenge ;  and,  as  leading  you  off  to  worse  ground  than  you  occupy. 
As  to  the  latter,  instead  of  leading  off,  my  proposal  was  to  lead  you  on  pub- 
licly to  assume,  and  if  possible  to  defend  the  precise  ground  you  occupy  in 
contradistinction  to  Anti-paido-baptists ;  that  is,  that  infant  Rantism,  or  su- 
perfusion  is  a  Divine  ordinance;  for  surely,  there  is  no  dispute  between  us  and 
you  about  believer's  Baptism,    This,  I  grant  you,  includes  both  the  subject, 
and  the  very  action  itself,  which  the  law  of  Christ  specifies  and  ordains.    This 
therefore  being  the  very  point  at  issue  between  us,  I  suggested  to  you  the 
propriety  of  assuming  it  as  such,  and,  if  possible,  of  proving  it  to  be  a  Divine 
ordinance ;  which  it  certainly  behoves  you  to  do,  so  long  as  you  continue  to 
practise  it  in  the  Divine  name.    But,  perhaps,  your  objection  against  assuming 
this  ground,  in  the  first  instance  (for  to  this  we  must  come  at  length,  as  the 
alone  question  at  issue)  is,  that  it  would  lead  you  to  take  the  affirmative;  for 
it  seems  you  are  quite  averse  to  this,  and  are  determined,  if  possible  to  be 
on  the  negative ;  as  I  think  you  must  be  convinced  that  it  behoves  the  affirma- 
tive to  open  the  discussion.    As  to  what  you  say  concerning  my  references  to 
Du  Pin,  being  at  present  from  home  on  a  journey,  I  have  not  that  book  at 
hand :  but  if  you  are  willing  to  rest  the  matter  upon  my  proving  from  that 
trriter,  aod  other*,  that  tba.  affirmative  has  usually  opened  every  discuaiioot 


$1 

where  theses  were  so  limited,  I  will  engage  te  do  it,  or  to  concede  to  you  the 
closing  speech.  But  why  you  should  hare  dwelt  so  much  on  this  topic,  as  a 
sine  qua  non,  when  I  consented  to  be  govened  by  the  rules  of  the  moderators, 
without  ever  so  much  as  noticing  this  important  concession,  this  just  and  rea- 
sonable alternative,  quite  astonishes  me ;  it  seems  to  argue  something  very 
forbidding  in  a  religious  antagonist.  When  you  will  not  agree  to  have  the 
matter  referred,  it  is  evident  you  look  for  an  advantage.  If  I  must  give  you 
an  advantage  I  will  do  it  gratuitously ;  not  under  the  semblance  of  a  ri^ht. 
I  will,  then,  to  obviate  all  diflSculties  on  my  side,  if  possible,  propose  to  meet 
you  at  Augusta,  or  rather  at  Mays-Lick,  on  Wednesday,  the  15th  day  of 
October  next^  the  day  ocf^.,.,,^  qj  ^q  (jay  after,  as  may  best  suit'  your  convt- 
niency,  at  11  o'clock,  A.  M.;  and  that  you  shall  have  the  privilege  of  both 
opening  and  closing  the  discussion,  and  of  speaking  twice  for  my  once :  that 
the  words  of  my  challenge  shall  be  the  subject  of  discussion,  and  that  the 
moderators  shall  act  as  aforesaid.  I  will  either  meet  you  thus,  or  I  will  agree 
that  the  moderators,  on  the  day  before  our  meeting,  after  having  heard  all  our 
correspondence,  make  the  rules  by  which  we  shall  proceed.  If  I  miut  giro 
advantage,  1  will  do  it  all  at  once,  and  manifestly.  Talk  no  more  then,  if  you 
please,  about  sine  qua  nons.  I  will  meet  you  as  aforesaid,  if  the  Lord  will, 
either  on  your  twenty-one  questions  and  mine ;  or  on  the  words  of  my  chal- 
lenge; or  on  the  four  questions  proposed  in  my  last;  or  on  the  decision  of 
the  three  moderators  that  shall  be  chosen.  I  have  mentioned  Mays-Lick,  aj 
by  letters  sent  me  from  Kentucky,  I  understand  it  to  be  a  much  better  place 
than  Augusta  for  accommodating  the  country  in  general,  and  that  many  more 
could  attend.  I  request  you,  if  determined  to  meet  me,  to  inform  Dr.  Keith, 
on  the  receipt  of  this,  and  to  let  him  know,  to  which  of  the  proposed  termt 
you  choose  to  accede ;  and  also  to  have  our  intended  meeting  made  as  public  ai 
possible.  You  will  abo  please  to  write  me  immediately  on  receipt  of  this. 
Please  also  to  recollect,  that  the  challenge  which  elicited  mine,  eame  forth 
from  your  armies ;  and  talk  no  more  of  the  stripling  David ;  nor  of  the  Philis- 
tine, Goliah.  How  good  soever  the  analogy  may  be  between  you  and  the 
tender  stripling ;  for  our  part  we  disclaim  comparison  with  the  mighty  Philis- 
tine. 

P.  S.  I  wrote  this  hastily,  while  stopping  for  dinner  on  a  journey,  you  will 
therefore  please  excuse  inaccuracies  of  style,  and  want  of  method. 
Your's  respectfully, 

A.  CAMPBELL. 


No.  10* 
Mr.  M'Calla  to  Mr.  Campbell. 

Augusta,  Sept.  ISth,  1823. 
Mft,  CampbBLi.  '  If,  as  you  intimate,  I  am  afraid  to  meet  you,  it 

should  be  matter  of  regret,  when  we  consider  the  goodness  of  my  cause,  the 
power  of  Christ,  and  the  experience  which  I  have  had  of  his  faithfulness  and 
condescending  goodness.  You  are  mistaken,  howftver,  in  one  statement  which 
may  encourage  you  in  this  belief.  It  is  that  I  try  to  force  you  to  gire  me  th* 
last  speech.  If  this  were  true,  it  might  be  en  evideice  of  fear  or  somethinj 
worse.  Your  assertion  of  the  fact  is  as  unprt>per,  as  your  maoner  of  givinj 
mtt  an  tmvought  ptlvHejifa  ii  Impolite. 


Although  to  be  afraid  of  so  formidable  an  antagonist  would  bp,  in  som« 
Sneasure,  excusable,  I  am  not  willing  to  lie  under  your  charge  of  uncorteous 
behaviour  for  omitting  to  notice  your  proposals  for  a  theological  arbitration. 
In  your  letter  of  July  21st,  you  propose  that  the  moderators, "  shall  after  having 
^  heard  read  in  their  hearing,  our  whole  correspondence,  decide  both  what 
*' questions  shall  be  discussed,  and  in  what  manner.  I  will  pledge  myself  to 
"comply  with  their  decisions."  This  I  omitted  to  notice  for  want  of  room; 
because  you  had  already  my  opinion  twice  on  such  measures,  and  because  I 
did  not  wish  to  expose  every  inadvertency  of  which  you  might  be  guilty.  If 
1  were,  in  haste,  to  offer  such  a  proposal,  I  would  thank  my  correspondent  for 
passing  it  in  silence.  In  my  letter  of  July  2d,  I  exRrp=-='><3  an  opinion  that  such 
a  preceding  was  nothing  better  than  tKo».i«5ical  Quixotism.  In  a  letter  of 
July  21st,  I  considered  that  to  promise  a  debate  at  random  arose  from  ambi- 
tion or  ostentation.  When  you,  in  your  pledge  copied  above,  commit  the 
very  fault  here  reproved,  did  decorum  require  that  I  should  repeat  my  con- 
demnation ?  or  was  it  necessary  for  me  to  insinuate  my  suspicions,  that  you 
chose  ground  which  you  knew  had  been  abandoned,  for  the  purpose  of  giving 
to  your  candor  and  bravery  a  more  illustrious  and  uninterrupted  display? 

Concerning  this  proposal  you  say,  "  if  this  is  inequitable,  then  all  arbitra- 
tions and  references  are  inequitable ;"  and  you  insinuate  that  a  refusal  on  my 
part  is  an  indirect  impeachment  of  the  ability  or  integrity  of  a  committee. 
The  third  rule  proposed  in  your  letter  of  June  16th,  and  in  the  system  adopt- 
ed at  Mount-Pleasant,  is,  "that  these  moderators  shall  merely  keep  order,  and 
not  pronounce  judgment  on  the  merits  of  the  debate."  Did  you,  by  this 
rule,  mean  any  insinuation  of  ignorance  or  corruption  ?  Did  you,  by  this 
proposal,  mean  to  make  war  upon  all  arbitrations  and  references,  which  are 
intended  to  decide  upon  the  merits  of  causes  ?  It  is  well  for  school-boys  to  re- 
ceive subjects  for  composition  and  declamation.  It  is  well  for  students  of  the- 
ology to  receive  subjects  for  trial  exercises.  In  both  these  cases,  however,  as 
well  as  in  arbitrations  and  references,  the  merits  are  decided  by  the  committees. 
This,  which  is  really  the  most  innocent  part  of  the  business,  and  which  haa 
been  the  practice  of  the  literary  and  theological  world,  time  immemorial,  does 
not  please  you ;  but  you  are  delighted  with  the  thought  of  returning  to  a 
state  of  minority,  of  engaging  in  a  sort  of  polemical  fencing,  on  a  subject  ar- 
bitrarily dictated  by  others,  and  concerning  the  tendency  of  which  to  good  or 
evil  we  are  utterly  ignorant.  If  the  long  parUament  of  England  which  you 
hold  in  such  contempt,  had  been  men  of  your  liberal  conscience,  they  would 
have  given  Archbishop  Laud  less  trouble  about  the  et  cetera  oath.  But  they 
complain,  "  We  are  here  to  swear  to  we  know  not  what,  to  something  that  is 
'not  expressed ;  by  which  means  we  are  left  to  the  arbitrary  interpretation  of 
"the  judge."  You  and  men  of  the  same  spirit  often  accuse  us  of  a  slavish 
adherence  to  the  Assembly  of  divines  convened  by  this  Parliament.  This 
eorrespondence  should  cause  you  to  inquire  again  who  it  is  that  is  most  dis- 
posed to  servile  compliances.  Is  it  the  man  who  cautiously  and  prayerfully 
examines  and  compares  the  Westminster  articles,  and  then  adopts  them  be- 
cause he  finds  that  form  of  sound  words  consistent  with  the  word  of  God  ? — Is 
it  he  who,  in  sacred  things,  is  unwilling  to  make  a  leap  in  the  dark  ?  or  is  it 
that  man  who  pompously  pledges  himself  to  abide  by  the  future  decision  of 
an  unknown  and  mixt  committee  .■*  and  who  takes  frequent  occasions  of  ridi- 


33 

eulin^  the  tender  consciences  of  those  who  would  rather  know  a  matter  be> 
fore  they  answer  it. 

This  alternative  of  your  proposals'is  of  course  rejected.  I  must  treatyout 
four  questions  in  the  same  way.  On  the  three  last  of  them  we  can  come  to 
no  immediate  issue.  Lsst  a  silent  concealment  of  my  disgust  should  again 
incur  your  resentment,  I  must  tell  you  that  the  first  of  these  four,  and  scores 
of  others  from  the  same  quarter,  are  only  calculated  to  darken  counsel  by 
words  without  knowledge. 

To  excuse  yourself  for  so  long  insisting  upon  the  right  of  prescribing  what 
I  should  defend,  you  say  that  I  first  dictated  twenty-one  questions  to  you.  I 
can  find  no  excuse  for  this  statement,  except  that  you  were  on  a  journey  when 
you  made  it,  and  had  not  my  first  letter  with  you.  You  will  there  find  that 
they  were  "respectfully  submitted  for  your  consideration,  and  (if  you  please) 
for  your  adoption  or  rejection,  amendment  or  selection,  enlargement  or  dimin- 
ution." Did  I  then,  or  have  I  ever  since,  made  your  adoption  of  them  a  condi- 
tion of  our  meeting  ?  So  far  was  I  fi-om  acting  the  part  of  a  dictator,  that 
you  have  more  than  once  commended  the  spirit  of  that  letter.  So  far  from 
insistipg  upon  their  adoption  after  they  were  trammelled  by  your  obscure 
and  ambiguous  questions,  I  have  incurred  the  censure  of  inconsistency  by 
abandoning  them  without  a  struggle.  This  I  did  in  silence,  not,  as 
Dr.  Keith  has  said,  because  I  was  afraid  to  meet  you,  but  because  I  was 
afraid  to  tell  you  my  opinion  of  your  questions,  lest  it  should  prevent  a  meet- 
ing, by  raising  too  high  that  magisterial  indignation  which  has  been  man- 
ifested in  several  of  your  letters,  and  which,  from  a  long  habit  of  domi- 
neering without  control,  has  become  quite  ungovernable.  This  same  mo- 
tive induced  me  entirely  to  suppress  the  first  letter  which  was  penned  for 
your  address,  because  on  reading  it  to  my  friend.  Major  Morris,  he  gave  it  as  his 
opinion  that,  by  irritating  your  feelings  with  severe  animadversions  upon  your 
book,  it  would  prove  an  obstruction  to  our  meeting.  To  the  same  cause  yoa 
may  ascribe  my  silence  hitherto  concerning  your  character,  although  mine 
occupied  the  introduction  to  your  first  letter.  Whatsoever  may  have  moved 
you  to  magnify  my  reputation  and  standing,  I  am  sorry  that  I  cannot  praise 
your  orthodoxy  or  piety.  The  numerous,  respectable  and  almost  uniform 
reports  against  you  in  these  respects  are  corroborated  by  your  various  writ- 
ings. It  is  said  that  you  are  polluted  with  the  theology  of  your  favorite  au- 
thor, the  disciple  of  Dr.  Priestly,  whose  Socinian  and  infidel  pravity  has  been 
so  completely  exposed  by  his  Baptist  countryman,  the  excellent  Andrew  Ful- 
ler. If  this  be  a  mistake,  you  will  rejoice  to  correct  it ;  and  be  assured  that 
gUch  a  favor  will  give  me  no  less  pleasure  than  yourself.  Untd  this  is  done, 
no  devoted  minister  of  the  divine  saviour  can  desire  any  other  intercourse 
with  you  than  as  an  adversary. 

Your  declaration  that  I  am  convinced  that  the  affirmative  should  open,  (and 
of  course  ,the  negative  close,)  notwithstanding  my  assurance  to  the  contrary, 
is  a  much  more  modest  insinuation  than  you  are  accustomed  to  making.  In 
this  respect  it  resembles  a  very  delicate  remark  in  your  first  address  at  Mount 
Pleasant.  It  is  in  the  following  words;  "  I  cannot  persuade  myself  to  believe 
that  they  who  affirm  that  Baptism  came  in  the  room  of  circumcision,  really 

F 


34 

thiak  so."  A  real  Christian  "who  could  utter  such  things,  not  from  hasty  pas- 
sion, or  settled  malignity,  but  from  sincere  conviction,  could  hardly  wish  to 
see  me,  except  as  an  antagonist.  In  this  capacity  I  am  inclined  to  meet  you ; 
not  from  any  favorable  opinion  of  your  piety  or  sincerity,  but  because  yoa 
are  allowed  (and  I  suppose  justly)  to  be  the  greatest  champion  of  Anabap- 
tism,  in  America — because  you  have  charged  the  Pedo-baptist  world  with  ad- 
ministering a  factitious  and  pernicious  ordinance; — because  you  have  public- 
ly challenged  them  to  stand  on  their- defence  ; — because  you  have  publicly 
gloried  in  their  silence,  as  arising  from  guilt,  timidity,  or  incompetency ; — and 
because  your  partieans  have  bantered  me,  and  thus  given  a  particular  direc- 
tion to  your  general  invitation. 

To  this  invitation  I  at  first  objected, because  although,  it  brings  us  to  a  spee- 
dy issue,  yet  it  confounds  things  quite  distinct,  and  it  is  clothed  in  unMecom- 
ing  language.  True,  its  exceptionable  phrasp,  infant  sprinkling,  is  not  so 
low  and  profane  an  expression  a?  David  Jones'  watery  hocus  pocus^  yet  it  is  in- 
tended as  a  sneer,  and  of  course  will  never,  by  the  lovers  of  piety  and  courte^ 
ay,  be  made  a  member  of  a  question  in  debate.  This  proposition,  however 
with  all  its  confusion  of  points  and  vulgarity  of  expression,  is  still  prefera- 
ble to  any  other  alternative  which  you  have  offered.  My  former  repeated 
acceptance  of  it  is  now  confirmed.  As  you  were  mistaken  about  the  superior 
eligibility  of  Mays-Lick,  I  was  reluctant  to  comply  with  your  wish.  Your 
friends  and  corrospendents.  Dr.  Keith  and  Major  Davis  undertook  the  respon- 
sibility of  requesting  on  your  behalf  that  Washington  might  be  the  place  of 
meeting.  As  this  was  to  your  advantage,  I  consented.  A  copy  of  our  joint 
publication  is  enclosed.  W.  L.  MACCALLA. 

No.  11. 

Mr.  Campbell  to  Mr.  M'Calla. 

Septembir  ^Ith,  1823. 
Mr.  Maccalla: 

Sir — Your  long  looked  for  favor  of  the  15th  inst.  came  to  hand  last  night. 
It  assures  me  that  you  are  now  disposed  to  meet  me,  and  have  actually  »- 
greed  to  meet  me  at  Washington,  Mason  county,  Ky.  on  the  15th  October,  oa 
the  proposition  printed  in  my  general  invitation.  But  under  what  regula- 
tions, I  know  not;  as  you  have  declined  referring  the  matter  to  the  three 
moderators,  and  have  said  notliing,  in  your  last,  on  what  rules  or  order  should 
be  observed. — It  appears  your  conseience  is  too  tender  to  allow  the  moderator« 
such  a  liberty,  as  to  say,  how  the  debate  should  be  conducted,  and  which  of  all 
the  topics  and  questions  proposed  should  be  discussed.  It  appears  also  that 
you  omitted  to  notice  this  proposal  in  a  former  letter  for  the  want  of  room ; 
yet,  there  is  more  than  one  third  of  a  page  of  your  letter  blank ;  so  that  yoo 
must  have  had  more  to  say  about  it,  in  your  letter  of  the  8th  August,  than  ia 
yours  of  the  15th  ingt.  for  you  do  not  say  so  much  on  it  in  your  last,  as  might 
have  been  written  on  the  blauk  in  your  preceding  epistle,  and  you  might  ae 
well  strive  to  arouse  my  feelings  then  as  now.  It  nmreover  appears,  that 
your  conscience  was  not  ?o  tender,  on  the  subject  of  mr  character  for  "or^ho- 
d6xy  and  piety,"  as  to  prevent  you  froia  insinuating,  nay,  u  om  declaring  that 


35 

Dr.  Prieistly's  disciple  was  my  favorite  author,  contrary  to  all  evidence  or  fact 
from  any  thing  in  ray  writing'",  or  from  any  respectable  source.  You  ahall,  per- 
haps, soon  know  that  I  have  no  favorite  authors  in  religion,  but  one ;  and  that 
man  who  says  I  am  a  first  or  second  hand  disciple  of  Priestly's  or  of  any  sociniaa 
author,  is  a  man  of  no  piety  nor  respectability  of  character :  nor  is  there  a  maa 
living  who  can  say,  or  dare  say  in  my  presence,  that  I  ever  expressed  a  senti- 
ment derogatory  to  the  Lord  Jesus  as  a  Divine  Redeemer,  as  Emmanuel  God 
with  us.  Such  insinuations  may  be  circulatsd  in  Kentucky,  by  those  who 
would  wish  to  impair  my  influence,  in  supporting  a  truth  more  hated  by  many 
of  the  "orthodox  and  pious"  than  socinianism  :  but  here  we  regard  them  not. 
As  to  my  piety,  I  know  I  have  nothing  to  boast  of,  God  alone  is  my  judge.  As 
to  my  external  deportment,  men  can  judge^  And  whenever  you  bring  forward 
any  specific  charge  of  immorality,  or  unchristian  deportment,  I  will  try  to  re- 
fute it.  But  as  I  shall,  Deo  volente,  at  some  future  day  expatiate  on  the  style 
and  sentiment  of  your  last,  I  proceed  to  say,  that  your  reference  to  your  first 
letter,  in  relation  to  the  twenty-one  questions  is  ^ar<iai;  and  not  altogether 
correct.  You  did  propose  the  twenty-one  questions  in  the  first  instance  as 
you  have  quoted,  but  afterwards,  you  tell  me,  in  the  same  letter,  that  you 
"  fairly  conclude  that  (unless  suppressed  by  mutual  consent,)  they  will  all 
be  discussed,  if  we  should  ever  meet."  Query :  Have  we  mutually  agreed 
to  suppress  them  ?  Or  are  they  to  be  discussed  at  our  meeting .''  I  request 
that  you  will  meet  me  at  Washington,  the  14th  day  of  October,  at  11  A.M. 
in  order  to  arrange  the  business,  for  you  have  not  agreed  to  meet  me  on 
any  of  the  terms  proposed,  in  my  last.  At  least  you  iiave  not  informed  me 
so.  But  you  have  told  me  that  you  are  to  meet  me  as  "  an  adversary,"  as 
ho  Satanas.  Well,  I  hope  you  will  remember,  that  when  Michael  the  arch- 
angel, disputed  with  the  adversary,  about  the  body  of  Moses,  he  durst  not 
bring  agamst  him  a  railing  accusation.  As  you  are  celebrated  for  piety  and 
orthodoxy,  and  I,  for  the  want  of  them,  a  great  deal  will  be  expected  fr»m 
5'ou,  and  very  little  from  your 

Humble  Servant 

A.  CAMPBELL. 

P.  S. — It  would  appear,  from  the  circumstance  of  your  contrasting  what  I  said 
of  your  high  standing,  &c.  ■vvilh  your  deep  sense  of  my  want  of  "orthodoxy  and 
piety,"  that  you  understood  the  high  standing  mentioned,  to  mean  your  high  stand' 
ing  for  "  piety  and  orthodoxy."  Lest  this  should  have  any  undue  influence  on 
your  raiad,  I  think  it  right  to  explain  it. — You  were  never  described  to  me  by  any 
Baptist  or  Paedo-baptist,  as  of  high  standing  for  either  "  piety  or  orthodoxy,"  but 
that  you  once  stood  high  as  a  lawyer,  if  I  mistake  not,  as  a  chaplain  in  the  army, 
and  now  as  a  presb}'terian  teacher:  and  that  you  were  highly  distinguished  for  a  pe- 
culiar kind  of  argumentative  faculty,  which  you  have  displayed  in  debates,  in  ser- 
mons, and  in  ecclesiastical  courts. — Excuse  this  much  to  nrevent  mistake.    A.  C. 


36 

'     No.  12. 

M'Calla  to  Campbell. 

Philadelphia,  Au^UHf  1st,  1826. 
Mr.  Campbell In  yours  of  Sept.  27,  1 823,  you  ob- 
serve, "I  shall.  Beo  volente,  at  some  future  day,  expatiate  on  the 
style  and  sentiment  of  your  last."  1  have  long  waited  in  vain 
to  see  these  promised  remarks.  In  the  commencement  of  your 
letter  you  inform  us  that  my  "  long  looked  for  favour"  had  come 
to  hand.  It  must  have  arrived  in  a  week  or  two  after  you  look- 
ed for  it.  If  you  languish  under  a  fortnight's  suspense,  when 
expecting  a  letter  from  me,  how  cruel  is  it  for  you  to  keep  me 
during  several  long  years,  from  witnessing  in  how  interesting  a 
manner,  you  can  "  expatiate  on  the  style  and  sentimenf  of  niy 
very  sentimental  effusion  !  As  it  is  probable  that  this,  like  many 
promises  of  marriage  made  by  professed  ministers  of  -the  gospel, 
IS  never  to  be  fulfilled,  lam  compelled  to  notice  your  little  letter 
which  was  intended  as  a  precursor  of  the  more  splendid  epistle. 

Not  long  after  writing,  you  discovered  in  a  personal  inter- 
view, that  you  were  mistaken  in  insinuating  that  I  was  reluctant 
to  settle  definite  rules  of  conference.  At  that  meeting  the  ob- 
jections came  from  yourself;  and  were  accordingly,  at  a  ubse- 
quent  meeting,  relinquished  by  yourself  All  that  I  asked  was, 
that  you  should  have  no  unfair  advantage. 

A  remark  in  your  letter,  which  really  appears  specious,  oa 
account  of  an  uncandid  concealment  and  an  incorrect  assertion, 
reads  as  follows,  Viz.  "  It  appears  also  that  you  omitted  to  no- 
*'tice  this  proposal,  [for  three  autocratical  arbitrators]  in  a  for- 
*'  mer  letter  for  the  want  of  room  ;  yet  there  is  more  than  one 
"3d  of  a  page  of  your  letter  blank  ;  so  that  you  must  have  had 
**more  to  say  about  it  in  your  letter  of  the  8th  of  August  than 
"in  yours  of  the  15th  inst.  for  you  do  not  say  so  much  on  it  in 
*'your  last,  as  might  have  been  written  on  the  blank  in  your  pre- 
"  ceding  epistle."  The  letter  to  which  you  refer,  forms  No.  10 
of  these  Collateral  Papers.  The  matter  to  which  you  refer,  oc- 
cupies the  second  and  third  paragraphs  of  that  letter.  Look 
back  and  see  whether  those  paragraphs  which  fill  a  page  of  your 
printed  book,  could  be  conveniently  written  on  a  fraction  of  a 
page.  Read  also  the  first  of  those  paragraphs,  and  see  whether 
the  want  of  room  was  the  only  reason  for  ray  silence  ',  or  wheth- 
er it  was  not  only  one  of  three  reasons,  either  of  which  would 
have  been  sufficient  if  1  had  had  three  pages  instead  of  a  third  of 
a  page.  If  you  could  place  me  in  an  awkward  predicament  by 
fair  ingenuity  or  wil,  I  should  laugh  and  admire,  instead  of  an- 
swering. But  your  endeavouring  to  do  it  by  concealing  facts 
and  inventing  fictions,  involuntarily  reminds  me  of  one  of  your 
many  endearing  remarks  to  Mr.  Greatrake.  If  I  recollect  rightly, 
you  informed  him,  that  you  knew  a  reptile,  (and  of  this  I  have 
no  doubt,)  that  you  knew  a  reptile,  which  could  creep  through  a 


hole  less  than  itself,  and  swallow  a  body  larger  than  itself.  Af- 
ter so  long  and  so  intimate  an  acquaintance  with  such  a  person- 
age, it  is  no  wonder  that  you  can  reduce  the  reasons  of  my  con- 
duct to  one  third  of  their  number,  and  make  one  third  of  a  page 
hold|as  much  as  a  whole  page. 

In  No.  9,  you  accused  me  of  dictating  twenty  one  questions. 
This  I  refuted  in  No.  10,  by  quoting  the  plainest  declaration  to 
the  contrary.     In  your  last  you  renew  the  attack  in  anotiier  way. 

The  following  are  your  words,  viz. "  your  reference  to  your 

*'  first  letter  in  relation  to  the  twenty-one  questions  is  partial,  and 
*'  not  altogether  correct.  You  did  propose  the  twenty-one  in 
"  the  first  instance  as  you  have  quoted,  but  afterwards  you  tell 
*«  me,  in  the  same  letter,  that  you  '  fairly  conclude  that  funiess 
''suppressed  by  mutual  consent,)  they  will  all  be  discussed,  if 
"we  should  ever  meet.'  Query:  Have  we  mutually  agreed  to 
"  suppress  them  r  or  are  they  to  be  discussed  at  our  meeting  ?" 
Now  your  reasoning  would  be  perfectly  conclusive,  if  you 
could  establish  as  a  Major  Proposition,  that  subtsiitting  articles 
to  future  negotiation  was  equivalent  to  dictating  them.     Your 

argument  would  then  run  as  follows' "Proposing  subjects 

"for  debate,  is  an  imperious  and  dictatorial  method  of  inipos- 

"ing  those  questions  upon  an  Antagonist. But   W.    L. 

"M'Calla  did  respectfully  submit  twenty-one  questions  for  my 
"  consideration,  and  (if  I  please)  for  my  adoption  or  rejection^ 
'•^amendment  or  selection,  enlargement  or  diminution.  This 
"same  W.  L.  M'Calla  did,  moreover,  in  the  same  letter,  fairly 
"  conclude,  that  (unless  suppressed  by  inutual  consent,)  tlwy  ivill 
^^  all  be  discussed  if  we  should  ever  meet.  ^  And  all  this  the  said 
"  W.  L.  M'Calia  wrote,  before  there  had  been  any  mutual 
"  agreement  on  the  subject,  and  when  no  one  could  tell  whether 

"  they  are  to  be  discussed  or  not. Therefore  it  is  as  plain  as 

^'  that  Mr.  Greatrake  is  a  great  sinner  ;  or  that  Sidney  Rigdfm  is 
"a  second  Solomon  ;  that  this  imperious  Kentuckian  has  dictat- 
'•  ed  these  questions  to  me,  and  means  that  I  shall  discuss  them, 
"  whether  there  is  a  mutual  agreement  to  that  effect  or  not." 

Shortly  after  the  commencement  of  the  discussion,  you  were 
probably  convinced  that  this  conclusion  was  incorrect  .1  ear- 
nestly and  repeatedly  requested  that  several  topics  embraced  in 
these  questions  might  be  entirely  suppressed.  I  wished  to  ad- 
here to  scriptural  evidence,  and  leave  ecclesiastical  history,  in 
relation  to  the  subject  of  baptism,  and  the  mode  of  baptism,  and 
the  origin  of  the  Baptist  Church,  out  of  tiie  question.  This 
would  drop  many  of  the  twenty-one  questions  ;  perhaps  every 
one  which  was  not  directly  em!>raced  in  your  challenge.  It  was 
soon  discovered  that  these  subjects  could  not  be  omitted  by  mu- 
tual consent.  You  probably  suspected,  that  the  request  to  pass 
them  by,  proceeded  from  want  of  preparation.  This  caused  you 
to  press  the  points  in  what  you  would  call  a  dictatorial  nianuL^r. 
■VVhile  you  were  doing  this,  a  gentleman  took  me  aside.     He 


58 

entreated  me  not  to  urge  tny  request  any  more,  but  to  take  you 
at  your  word,  and  he  and  others  would  continua  to  attend,  if  the 
discussion  should  last  a  month.  I  consented,  and  after  this,  all 
the  mournful  entreaties  for  suppressing  these  topics,  came  from 
the  other  side  :  but  the  dye  was  cast  by  your  own  act,  and  vou  had 
to  bear  the  consequences.  In  your  letter  you  tell  us  of  some 
things  which  no  living  man  can  say,  or  dare  say  in  your  august 
presei  ce.  How  different  this  menacing  air,  from  the  doleful 
ditty  of  some  of  your  plaints,  when  contending  with  one  who 
dared  to  tell  the  truth.  What  a  pity  that  you  had  not  kept  your 
threats  for  the  exclusive  use  of  such  men  as  Mr.  Rirch.  your 
writer  of  challenges,  and  Mr.  Rigdon  your  writer  of  certificates. 

Lest  your  good  opinion  should  have  an  undue  influence  on  my 
mind,  you  are  careful  to  inform  me  very  exactly  what  you  have 
heard  and  what  you  have  not  heard,  concerning  my  character. 
Now  sir.  do  you  really  think  that  a  serious  Christian  would  covet 
the  praise  of  an  avowed  enemy  to  religious  exercises  and  institu- 
tions, and  even  to  moral  duties  and  associations  ?  But  if  you 
ever  heard  that  I  once  stood  high  as  a  lawyer,  it  was  probably 
from  one  who  was  about  as  well  qualified  to  write  my  life  as  you 
■were  to  write  my  speeches.  I  once  attempted  to  study  law,  but 
failed  for  the  very  same  reason  that  has  made  you  fail  in  the  min- 
istry ;  that  is,  I  had  no- relish  for  the  profession.  A  lawyer  who 
conscientiously  recognizes  his  responsibility  to  God,  and  keeps 
truth  and  justice  (whether  for  or  against  his  client)  steadily  in 
view,  may  spend  his  breath  usefully,  in  perpetually  disputing 
about  wounds  and  bruises,  and  thefts  and  murders,  and  frauds 
and  forgeries,  and  money  and  lands  and  goods  and  chattels  and 
houses  and  horses  and  hog&  :  And  perhaps  the  man  who  inform- 
ed you  of  my  high  standing  at  the  bar,  would  admit  that,  in  that 
pursuit,  I  could  with  thtt  help  of  Providence  have  amassed  a  con- 
siderable portion  of  this  world's  Wi-alth,  and  have  risen  a  little 
highei  than  the  bar,  and  have  obtained  the  admiration  and  praise 
of  those  who  now  traduce  me.  But  the  Grod  of  the  bible,  for 
Christ's  sake,  and  by  the  agency  of  his  Holy  Spirit,  was  pleased 
to  convince  a  perishing  sinner  that  those  emoluments  were  not 
the  most  valuable.  My  ambition  reached  after  nobler  pursuits 
and  higher  rewards.  I  am  willing  to  dispute  with  as  much  ar- 
dor and  perseverance  as  any  lawyer ;  but  it  is  in  a  better  cause : 
and  if  I  receive  no  other  return,  than  the  sweet  comforts  of  re- 
ligion, which  attend  a  disinterested  and  conscientious  perform- 
ance of  duty,  I  prefer  it  to  their  gold  and  silver.  It  is  true  that 
I  have  sometimes  to  fight  with  wild  beasts  at  Ephesus,  oi  if  you 
please,  at  Washington,  (Kentucky)  and  Lombard  Street  Church 
(Philadelphia,)  but  1  decidedly  prefer  the  lot  of  a  gracious  and 
faithful  minister  of  the  Gospel,  with  all  its  thankless  mortifica- 
tions, dangers  and  toils,  to  that  of  any  other  man  under  the  sun. 

This  has  not  been  my  feeling  alway,  nor  even  from  the 
Commencement  of  my  religious  profession.  It  was  after  that  pe- 
riod that  I  obtained  licence  to  plead  law,  and  was  admitted  to 


59 

practice  in  the  Lexington  Court.     But  when  that  was  done  my 
legal  career  was  done.     I  never  advocated  one  cause.     But  if  I 
had  done  it,  it  wos  always  my  determination  that,  in  the  face  of 
all  consequences,  I  would  uniformly  and  invariably  avoid  quib- 
bles, prevarications  and  falsehoods,  as  I  would  avoid  sin,  death 
and  hell.     Oh!  how  many  transgressitms  of  this  sort  have  stained 
the  character  of  one  who  does  not  pretend  to  be  a  lawyer,  but  a 
Bishop,  and  even  a  Bishop-maker.     Among  his  many  tricks,  I 
will  remind  you  of  one,  the  mention  of  which  was  designedly, 
postponed  to  the  close  of  our  correspondence.     Several  years 
ago  he  blew  a  trumpet  on  Mount  Pleasant,  challenging  any  man 
in  the  world  to  contend  with  him  on  equal  terms,     tlis  invitation 
being  at  last  accepted  by  your  humble  servant,  the  great  man  in- 
sisted that  as  he  had  had  the  last  fire  in  a  former  engagement,  so  he 
must  in  this,  though  for  different  and  even  opposite  reasons.     At 
last  the  fitness  of  things  and  long  prescription  were  announced 
as  the  strong  holds  which  should  secure  his  object.     His  man- 
ner of  supporting  the  last  position  is  the  cause  which  brings  the 
subject  now  before  us.     In  No  5,  of  these  Collateral  Papers  he 
endeavours  to  prove  his  prescriptive  right  to  the  closing  speech, 
by  referring  to  particular  interviews  of  a  similar  character,  iu 
which  Luther,  OEcolampadius,  Eckius  and  Carolostadius  were 
parties,    and  then  referring  to  ninety-eight  pages  of  Du  Pin's 
Ecclesiastical  History  in  the  lump,  for  wliat  he  carelessly  calls 
*'  MANY  OTHER  INSTANCES."     After  my  informing  him  in  No.  6, 
of  my  inability  to  find  any  of  these  many  nameless  instances,  I 
proceeded  to  shew  the  perfect  irrelevancy  of  those  to  which  he 
particularly  referred.     This  he  answers  in  No.  9,  in  the  follow- 
ing words,  viz  :   *'  As  to  what  you  say  concerning  my  references 
**  to  Du  Pin  being  at  present  from  home  on  a  journey,  I  have  not 
"  that  book  at  hand  :    but  if  you  are  willing  to  rest  the  matter 
"  ujjon  ray  proving  from  that  writer,  and  others,  that  the  aflSrtn- 
*'  ative  has  usually  opened  every  discussion,  where  theses  were 
'*  so  limited,  I  will  engage  to  do  it,  or  to  concede  to  you  the  clos- 
♦*  ing  speech."     After  such  a  display  of  learning,  and  such  an  ar- 
ray of  authorities,  at  the  commencement  of  this  discussion,  who 
could  have  expected  sueh  a  retreating,  dodging,  drivelling  an- 
swer at  the  close  of  it  ?     After  having  gallopped  into  this  ques- 
tion with  such  pomp  and  confidence,  is  it  not  surprising  that  he 
should  slip  out  of  it  with  such  inoffensive  tameness  ?      In  this 
answer  he  insinuates,  as  usual,  that  it  was  I  who  wished  the 
closing  speech,  and  that  on  certain  conditions  he  would  consent 
to  let  me  have  it.      What  he  has  here  insinuated,  he  asserts  in 
the  plainest  terms,  in  the  close  of  his  report.       He  well  knows 
that  I  never  descended  so  low  as  to  ask  this  or  any  other  exclu- 
sive privilege.     Moreover,  in  this  answer  he  shifts  the  question 
from  the  right  of  closing  to  the  duty  of  opening,  as  if  proving  it 
my  place  to  open,  would  secure  the  close  to  him  :  whereas  he 
could  not  deny  that  prescription  aiYiongst  us,  would  secure  the 
closing  to  the  one  who  opened,   instead  of  to  his  antagonist. — 
Finding  that  Du  Pin  was  to  his  cause,  what  Jonah  was  to  the 
ahip— — onlj  calculated  to  sink  it,  the  above  answer  shews  that 


40 

he  threw  his  author  overboard,  or  which  amounts  to  the  same 
thing,  he  jumped  overboard  himself  by  starting  on  a  journey, 
which  of  course,  must  be  a  satisfactory  reason  for  not  consulting 
the  work  before  his  departure  or  after  his  return  !  !  After  his  re- 
turn, he  wrote  No.  11  above,  without  givin  me  the  desired  in- 
formation, nor  has  he  yet  sent  it,  although  he  has  had  time  to  «  ex- 
patiate on  ihe  style  and  sentiment  of  all  that  I  ever  wrote  in  my 
life.  The  question  was  much  agitated  between  the  parties  in 
Wasliington,  the  day  before  the  debate.  Neither  Du  Pin  nor  any 
other  author  was  called  for,  although  1  had  brought  his  massy  vol- 
umes and  several  other  works  to  the  ground,  for  Mr.  Campbell's 
use,  at  the  request  of  his  friend  Dr.  Keith.  Thus  have  you  asser- 
ted cases  which  had  no  existence,  distorted  those  which  had,  and 
at  last  abandoned  both  the  real  and  fictitious  cases,  not  with  the 
candour  of  a  man,  but  with  the  unprincipled  shuffling  of  a  petti- 
fogger. Yet  this  is  the  man  who,  in  No.  9  above,  replies  to 
reasoning  which  he  could  not  refute,  by  saying  that  it  was 
♦ '  worse  than  the  quibbling  of  schoolboys. " 

W.  L.  M'CALLA. 


No,  13. 

Onfads^  and  on  the  truth  of  Mr.  CaniphelVs  Report. 

From  W.  L.  M'Calla  to  Col.  Jos.  Crockett,  near  Nicholasville,  (Ky.) 

My  Dear  Unclk, Your  letter,  for  which  I  have  never 

before  had  an  opportunity  of  thanking  you,  has  touched  a  chord 
which  vibrates  with  sincere  and  tender  affection  for  yourself  and 
my  bel(»ved  aunt  and  cousins,  ever  since  my  infant  eyes  could 
distinguish  you  in  the  remote  Kentucky  forest  in  which  I  was 
born.  My  love  for  your  family  is  by  no  means  weakened  from 
the  fact  that  several  of  them  have  become  Baptists.  The  debate 
with  Mr.  Campbell  prevented  me  from  visiting  your  pious  Bap- 
tist son  Dr.  Jos.  C.  at  his  request,  in  that  sickness  from  which  we 
hope  that  he  ascended  to  eternal  health.  And  cordially  did  I 
wish  that  your  daughter  and  her  husband  Dr.  Bower,  and  all  mj 
Baptist  friends  could  have  witnessed  the  forbearance  with  which 
I  treated  real  christians  of  that  denomination.  With  a  good 
conscience  I  can  say,  that  in  that  controversy,  and  every  other, 
truth  was  my  object.  For  this  reason,  I  never  asked  the  right 
of  closing,  but  only  of  speaking  until  satisfied.  When  Colonel 
Morris  of  Au^  usta.  asked  me,  before  Mr.  Campbell's  arrival, 
what  I  would  do  about  the  last  speech,  I  told  him  that  if  we  en- 
gaged on  equal  terms,  the  last  address  was  of  so  little  import- 
ance to  me,  that  I  had  no  expectation  of  speaking  last.  1  then 
assigned  and  at  the  same  time  illustrated  my  reason  f:tr  this  in- 
difference, by  an  allusion  to  an  animal  with  which  you  know  we 
Kentuckians  have  to  be  familiar,  from  the  time  ttiat  we  can  hold 
a  bridle.  A  running  horse  shews  when  he  is  out  of  breath,  by  the 
motion  of  his  tail.     I  observed  to  Col.  Morris  tliat  when  my  point 


41 

•was  gained,  and  my  antagonist  began  to  switch  his  tail,  my  meth- 
od was  to  leave  him  the  field  j  for  he  would  only  show  his  own  ex- 
haustion, and  proclaim  ray  victory.  From  Mr.  Campbell's  let- 
ters, in  Nos.  9  and  11,  of  these  prelimifary  papers,  Dr.  Keith, 
his  representative,  agreed  that  he  had  relinquished  his  claims  for 
privilege,  and  was  willing  to  debate  on  equal  terms  in  alternate 
speeches,  according  to  the  tenor  of  our  correspondence.  His 
-words,  in  his  own  hand  writing,  are  now  before  me.  They  are 
the  following,  viz  :  "  It  is  our  understanding  of  Mr.  A.  Carap- 
*' bell's  letter  of  August  23d,  1823,  to  W.  L.  M'Calla,  that  he 
'*  relinquishes  his  claims.  But  when  we  met  at  Major  Davis's  in 
Washington,  the  day  before  the  debate,  he  interposed  several  dii- 
ficulties.  He  insisted  again  upon  4US  much  loved  closing 
speech,  and  as  this  was  refused,  he  required  as  an  indispensable 
alternative,  that  I  should  both  open  and  close,  and  speak  twice 
tohis  once!  !  He  had  discovered  also,  that,  to  my  feeble  health, 
writing  was  then,  as  it  is  now.  exceedingly  difficult,  and  to  any 
great  extent,  impossible.  He  therefore  urged  as  another  sine  qua 
non,  before  unheard  of,  that  I  should  write  down  for  his  use  du- 
ring the  debate,  any  portion  of  my  argument  which  he  should  call 
for  !  On  my  pleading  the  impossibility  of  the  thing,  he,  instead 
of  relaxing,  became  mure  pertinacious.  My  refusal  was  then  pe- 
remptory. After  this,  he  appeared  to  agree  to  fair  terms,  and 
consented  to  have  them  immediately  committed  to  paper.  As 
it  is  generally  disagreeable  to  me  to  write  even  ten  lines,  I  re- 
quested that  he  would  take  the  pen.  He  did  so,  but  to  the  as- 
tonishment of  the  compan}',  embodied  in  the  written  articles,  his 
demands  which  had  just  been  renounced.  Tn  dealing  with  such 
men,  it  has,  for  many  years,  been  deemed  important  to  have  a 
witness  with  me.  On  this  occasion,  an  eminent  lawyer  of 
Washington,  Mr.  Paxton,  at  whose  house  I  lodged,  favored  me 
with  his  companj".  Before  he  could  send  me  his  vv-ritten  testi- 
mony concerning  this  and  a  subsequent  conversation,  as  he  de- 
clared he  would,  it  pleased  Providence  to  remove  him  from  this 
world.  Yet  God  has  so  ordered  it,  that  the  autograph  of  those 
rules  is  now  in  my  hands,  with  the  signature  of  the  parties,  and 
the  three  moderators,  attesting  that  the  exceptionable  articles 
were  afterwards  exploded  by  mutual  consent.  This  point  was 
not,  however,  gained  at  that  meeting.  He  persisted  in  his  un- 
reasonable demands.  Just  before  we  partetl,  I  told  him  that  I 
should  endeavour  to  attend  punctually,  at  the  time  and  place 
appointed  for  the  debate,  and  would,  with  the  help  of  God.  de- 
f«'nd  the  truth  against  the  allegations  of  his  challenge,  whether 
with  or  without  written  rules.  In  the  evening,  he,  in  company 
with  Mr.  Rigdon  and  .Mr  Vaughn,  came  over  to  Mr.  Paxtoirs, 
where  he  fimnd  me  pleasantly  seated  in  a  circle  of  friends,  chiefly 
ladies.  Immediately  after  taking  his  chair,  he  informed  me  rhat 
he  was  willing  to  drop  the  objectionable  articles,  and  come  to  an 
agreement  on  the  remaining  rules  which  he  had  written.  After  I 
had  expressed  my  satisfaction,  we  agreed  to  liave  them  copied, 
signed  and  attested,  the  next  morning,  and  put  into  the  hands 
of  the  moderators.      He  then  very  abruptly  demanded  my  au- 

G" 


42 

thority  for  insinuating,  as  in  No.  10  above,  that  he  was  tainted 
with  the  theology  of  Robinson,  a  disciple  of  Dr.  Priestley.  As 
this,  and  every  thing  else,  during  the  interview,  was  spoken  by 
him  in  such  a  manner  as  ta  engross  the  attention  of  the  compa- 
ny, I  observed  with  a  smile,  that,  if  he  chose,  we  would  attend  to 
that  subject  at  another  time  and  place.  But  he  was  not  to  be  put 
oiF.  He  pressed  the  point,  and  demanded  my  author.  Just  at 
this  moment,  there  was  in  my  mind  an  association,  which  need  not 
be  explained,  between  mj  informant  and  an  intelligent,  witty, 
and  much  admired  young  lady  of  the  company.  1,  therefore, 
with  a  grave  countenance,  tinged  with  drollery,  asked  her  if  she 
did  not  hold  herself  responsible  for  this  information.  It  had  the 
desired  effect.  The  feelings  of  the  company  which  had  begun 
to  be  on  the  rack,  were  relaxed  with  a  hearty  laugh,  in  which 
the  young  lady,  discovering  my  design,  cordially  joined.  It 
was  soon  discovered  that  Mr.  Campbell  did  not  enjoy  the  joke. 
He  observed  that  he  did  not  think  the  insinuation  in  question  to 
be  such  as  would  come  from  a  gentleman.  This  cast  a  gloom  over 
every  countenance  in  the  room  except  my  own.  Every  one  had 
expected,  (and  in  this  I  agreed  with  them,)  that  Mr.  Campbell 
had  at  least  sense  enough  to  make  him  beiiave  with  commun  de- 
cency in  such  a  company.  But  this  was  expecting  too  much 
from  the  animal  whose  indiscriminate  ferocity  had  endeavoured 
to  adorn  his  den  with  the  bones  of  Mrs.  Judson,  a  female  Bap- 
tist Missionary.  Mr.  Campbell's  remarks  hurt  me  in  no  other 
way  than  as  it  made  me  the  unwilling  occasion  of  having  the 
company  insulted,  and  that  in  the  house  of  a  high-minded  gen- 
tleman, whose  patience  and  prudence  were  put  to  a  severe  trial. 
Being  unwilling  to  contend  on  such  a  subject  at  all,  and  espe- 
cially in  Mr.  Paxton's  parlour,  1  arose,  took  a  drink  of  water,  and 
saunteied  about  the  room  ^^ith  great  composure.  But  still  his 
pronouncing  me  no  gentleman,  rang  in  their  ears,  and  sealed  their 
faculties  in  mute  astonishment.  To  relieve  them  from  a  long  and 
painful  silence,  and  at  the  same  time  to  turn  the  subject  entirely, 
I  sat  iown  ;  and,  taking  a  piece  of  alum  out  of  my  pocket,  obser- 
ved to  the  company,  that  for  some  time  I  had  been  troubled  with  a 
sore  tongue,  and  had  found  alum  a  good  remedy.  "  Yes  sir,"  said 
Mr.  <  'ampbell,  "  but  that  does  not  prove  that  I  am  a  Socinian." 
'  No  sir,'  said  I,  '  but  I  thought  that  your  tongue  also  might  be  the 
better  of  a  little  alum.'  This  again  relieved  the  company  in  some 
measure.  But  Mr.  Campbell  received  no  farther  attention  from 
me,  and  but  little  from  any  present  j  so  that  he  and  Mr.  Rigdoa 
withdrew.  To  Mr.  Vaughn,  who  remained  by  request,  Mr. 
Paxton  expressed  himself  with  great  freedom.  Mr.  Vaughn, 
perhaps  not  expecting  such  conduct,  was  at  a  loss  for  an  apolo- 
gy. \t  last  he  said  that  Mr.  Campbell  was  an  Irishman,  and 
that  an  Irishman  ought  always  to  have  the  privilege  of  speaking 
twice.  Phis  may  be  true  of  Mr.  Campbell,  but  nut  of  such 
Irishmen  as  now  compose  the  majority  of  my  congregation. 

As  it  is  contrary  to  my  wish  to  interrupt  the  argument  with 
narration,  1  would  here  inform  you  of  some  things  which  Mr. 


•  43 

Campbell  has  omitted  or  misstated  in  his  report.  He  omits  Mr 
Verdeman's  laughing  and  afterward  denying  it,  and  remaining 
under  a  stigma  f()r  this  conduct,  although  he  got  Mr.  Vaughn 
and  even  Mr.  Campbell  to  try  to  convince  the  people  that  the 
witnesses  against  him  might  not  exactly  understand  the  meaning 
of  the  word  laugh! !  Instead  of  telling  the  public  that  Mr. 
Verdeman  opposed  my  rtading  certain  passages  from  Robmson, 
he  makes  Mr.  Verdeman  volunteer  his  consent  to  my  enjoying 
this  liberty.  This  was  because  Mr.  Campbell  had  published 
that  the  Pedobaptist  moderator  at  Mount  Pleasant,  had  tried  to 
deprive  him  of  the  privilege  of  reading  the  same  author.  After 
accusing  the  Pedobaptist  in  one  debate,  (though  falsely  as  some 
say)  of  this  illiberality,  he  did  not  like  to  expose  Mr.  Verde- 
man's real  guilt  in  another  debate. 

In  connexion  with  this  subject,  he  mentions  the  complaint 
made  by  Mr.  Verdeman,  and  (he  ought  to  have  said)  by  Mr. 
Campbell,  that  1  transgressed  the  rules  of  decorum  in  styling  :Vtr. 
Campbell  our  Jlccuser  ^nd  Adversary.  He  professes  to  give  the 
word:  or  the  purport  of  the  speeches  of  the  three  moderators. 
The  man  whowould,underoath,  give  the  statements  found  in  the 
62d  and  63d  pages  of  his  book  on  this  subject,  would,be  grossly  de- 
ficient invery  desirable  qualities.  He  does  not  report  Mr.  Burch, 
the  Pedobaptist  moderator,  \o  justify  me  in  the  use  of  the  words 
complained  of,  but  only  to  say  "  something  intended  as  an  excuse 
for  Mr.  M'Calla.''  As  for  Mr.  Verdeman,  the  Baptist  moderator, 
and  Major  Roper,  the  presiding  moderator,  he  represents  them  as 
giving  an  opinion  against  me,  and  then  represents  me  as  approv- 
ing of  this  adverse  decision  of  the  president.  By  this  he  evident- 
ly designs  to  make  the  reader  believe  that  a  majority  of  the  bench 
did,  by  a  definitive  decision,  deprive  me  of  the  light  of  using 
these  words,  and  that  I  relinquished  the  use  of  them  because  I  ac- 
quiesced in  their  decision.  Mr.  Campbell's  challenge,  which 
was  the  well  known  subject  of  debate,  read  as  follows,  viz  : 
"  I  engage  to  prove,  in  a  debate  with  him  [that  is,  any  Pedobap- 
tist minister,]  that  Infant  Sprinkling  is  a  human  tradition,  and 
injurious  to  the  well-being  of  society,  religious  and  political." 
Among  the  particulars  which  he  adduced  to  shew  that  our  reli- 
gion was  injurious  to  society,  we  find  such  as  innovation  and  cor- 
ruption, will-worship  and  superstition,  deception  and  imposition, 
tyranny  and  persecution.  1  insisted  that  these  accusations  con- 
stituted their  author  an  Accuser,  and  that  he  was  our  Adversary 
in  proportion  to  our  innocence  and  the  heinousness  of  the  crimes 
alledged.  In  this  I  viz.%  justified  ax\(ii  not  excused  by  Mr.  Burch, 
the  Pedobaptist  moderator,  and  my  right  to  the  use  of  these 
word*  was  secured  to  me  by  the  casting  vote  of  Major  Ro>er, 
the  presiding  moderator,  whose  speech  on  this  point  ot  order  ve- 
ry ably  supported  his  vote.  And  how  could  a  man  of  his  char- 
acter and  standing,  be  expected  to  decide  otherwise?  With 
uncommon  reputation,  he  has  served  his  country  as  a  lawyer,  a 
legislator  and  a  judge.  Could  he  deny  that  one  who  makes  such 
<  onspicnoufe  opposition  to  the  Pedobaptist  world,  istlieiradver- 


44 

Saty  r  or  that  oue  who  volunteers  such  malignant  accusations,  is 
their  accuser  ?  After  his  decision  was  announced,  and  I  had 
expressed  ray  hearty  approbation  of  it,  I  told  the  audience  that 
this  was  the  very  end  for  which  I  had  us^ed  the  words.  Before  we 
met,  I  had  suspected  Mr.  Campbell's  design  of  ungenerously 
throwing  the  odium  of  challenging  and  accusing  upon  myself.  I 
therefore  determined  to  use  these  words  iji  perfect  consistency 
with  truth  and  decorum,  until  Mr.  Campbell  should  complain, 
and  elicit  an  authoritative  decision  in  my  f  ivoiir.  The  thing 
had  proceeded  and  issued  according  to  my  expectations  and  de- 
sires. They  cotild  now  see  in  the  light  of  a  decision  of  the 
bench,  who  was  the  assailant,  and  who  stood  on  the  defensive. 
I  then  observed, |that  as  the  end  was  accomplislied  forwhich  I  had 
used  the  oftensive  words,  I  should  not  designedly  use  them  again. 

There  is  reason  to  believe  that  the  character  of  Mr.  Camp- 
bell's speeches  was.  in  some  measure,  owing  to  an  impressioa 
that  I  was  a  Kentuckian  in  temper  as  well  as  birth  and  educa- 
tion. He  thought  that  to  irritate,  would  be  a  summary  method 
of  defeating  me.  It  is  probably  for  this  reason,  in  part,  that  he 
is  said  to  have  assured  his  friends  that  the  debate  should  not  oc- 
cupy more  than  three  hours  :  for  this  appeared  a  sufficient  length 
of  time  to  make  me  bite  myself  like  an  infuriated  rattle-snake 
of  our  woods.  The  spirit  and  word  of  God  had  convinced  me 
of  my  nature  and  my  danger.  I  prayed  in  the  name  of  Hira 
who  bruises  the  Serpent's  head,  and  heals  the  Serpent's  bite. 
Notwithstanding  his  proud,  boastful  and  abusive  language,  I  oc- 
cupied the  first  day  in  nothing  but  argument,  as  if  I  had  not 
heard  his  taunts  and  sarcasms.  Early  the  next  morning,  several 
bref:hren  told  me  that  as  his  scurrility  was  relished  by  many,  it 
was  highly  important  that  I  should  notice  it ;  especially  as  some, 
particularly  Baptists  and  strangers,  might  interpret  my  calmness 
into  stupid  tameness,  or  cowering  fear.  "  Now,  brother  M'Cal- 
la,''  says  one  of  them,  "  I  know  very  well  that  when  you  think 
proper,  you  can  clothe  your  tongue  with  a  sufficient  portion  of 
-severity."  i  hat  day  Mr.  Campbell  shew^ed  considerable  unea- 
siness, and  betrayed  a  great  anxiety  to  bring  the  controversy  to 
a.  close  as  soon  as  possible,  lest  the  length  of  the  debate  and  the 
greatness  of  his  honor,  might  be  in  an  inverse  ratio,  the  longer 
the  less.  The  difficulty  with  him  was  to  find  out  a  way  of  cry- 
ing'•  enough,"  and  yet  gaining  the  reputation  of  a  triumph. 
But  try  it  he  must,  and  that  very  soon  ;  for  the  longer  it  con- 
tinued, the  worse  his  affairs  became.  He  therefore  collected  his 
scattered  forces  to  a  point  ;  boasted  much  of  his  success  ;  form- 
ally and  very  pompously  too,  proclaimed  himself  the  victor;  and 
then  with  a  bold  and  dictatorial  air,  pronounced  the  discussion 
at  an  end.  This  artifice  appeared  perfectly  nugatory  in  the 
stage  which  the  debate  had  then  attained  If  only  made  his 
weakness  conspicuous.  This  he  soon  discovered,  and  as  his  last 
resort,  he  fled  to  the  Moc'erators  to  protect  him  trom  my  argu- 
ments ;  calling  upon  them  to  interpose  their  authority,  to  pre- 
sent me  from,  taking  my  own  course  in  the  debate,  and  to  com- 


4j 

pel  me  to  follow  any  method  whicii  he  might  choose  to  pursue. 
His  reason  for  this  liberal  request  was,  that  he  had  opened  in  the 
affirmative,  and  that  I  had  followed  in  the  negative,  and  was 
therefore  (strange  to  tell)  bound  to  follow  him  in  method  and  ar- 
gument as  well  as  in  time  !  In  this  he  was  remarkable,  alike 
for  generosity  and  consistency.  Was  it  not  generous  for  him  to 
ask  the  Mpderators  to  hold  his  Antagonist  until  h*^  beat  him  ? 
And  was  it  not  consistent  for  him  to  give  as  a  reason  for  this,  a 
fact  which  he  perseveringly  denied  in  his  correspondence  Avith 
me  ?  that  is,  that  he  held  the  affirmative  and  I  the  negative  ? 
To  obtain  the  closing  speech,  he  insisted,  before  the  debate,  that 
he  held  the  negative.  To  stop  my  head-waj  during  the  debate, 
he  insisted  that  he  held  the  affirmative. 

Mr.  Campbell's  book  tells  us  that  Mr.  Verdeman's  opinion  on 
this  point  of  order,  was  given  "  after  a  number  of  remarks  and 
"references,  which  we  are  sorry  cannot  be  correctly  stated,  as 
"there  were  no  minutes  taken  of  the  speeches  of  the  Modera- 
*'tors  on  such  occasions.''  To  give  weight  to  these  "  remark? 
and  references''  of  Jeremiah  Verdeman,  as  the  Baptists  of  Ken- 
tucky call  him,  Mr.  Campbell  calls  him  Bishop  Verdeman,  leav- 
ing the  reader  to  conjecture  whether  he  is  the  learned  Bishop  of 
Kentucky  or  of  the  western  country  at  large.  Considering  his 
knowledge  of  deliberative  bodies  in  church  and  state,  both  from 
his  own  observation  and  his  acquaintance  with  books,  how  can 
the  scribes  answer  to  the  public  for  neglecting  to  record  these 
said  '•  remarks  and  references"  of  his  ?  We  can  easily  spare  the 
speeches  of  the  other  two  Moderators,  as  they  differed  from  the 
bishop,  and  especially  as  Mr.  Campbell  gives  them  no  credit  for 
such  "a  number  of"  these  pillars  and  ornaments  of  eloquence. 
The  manner  in  which  this  impartial  reporter  introduces  the  deci- 
sion of  the  Pedobaptist  Moderator,  presents  to  advantage  the 
great  superiority  of  his  favourite  Mr.  Verdeman.  It  is  as  fol- 
lows :  "The  rev.  Birch  [his  name  is  Burch]  replied  to  the  bish- 
op," &c.  This  Mr.  Burch,  whose  friends  would  be  very  sorry 
to  rank  him  with  such  Bisliops  as  Mr.  Verdeman,  or  such  Arch- 
bishops as  Mr.  Campbell,  has  since  declared  in  public,  if  I  be 
rightly  informed,  that  Mr.  Campbell's  report  is  a  tissue  of  false- 
hoods. In  the  particular  decision  now  under  review,  he  has  not 
given  a  true  account  of  his  speech  nor  that  of  Major  Roper,  nor 
even  that  of  the  Baptist  Moderator.  A.s  for  Mr.  Verdeman's 
numerous  references  of  which  Mr.  Campbell  speaks,  they  must 
have  been  made  at  home  if  they  were  ever  made  at  all ;  and  his 
few  and  confused  remarks  were  a  weak  echo  of  Mr.  Campbell's 
attempt  to  prove  that  I  ought  to  be  required  to  follow  my  oppo- 
nent's method  instead  of  my  own.  This  puerile  effort  at  usurr 
pation  and  tyranny,  was  so  preposterous,  that  I  said  little  ov 
nothing  upon  the  subject,  especially  as  1  knew  the  character  of 
the  Bench.  Accordingly  Mr.  Burch  and  Major  Roper  overru- 
led Mr.  Campbell's  motion,  and  supported  their  decision  in  their 
respective  aldressesj  with  great  calmness,  dignity  and  ability. 
Shortly  after  this,  Mr.  Campbell  wished  an  adjournment,  while 


46 

the  sun  was  yei  high,  and  gave  as  a  reason  for  it,  that  he  was 
sick.  I  ventured  to  request  that  we  might  continue  longer. 
Mr.  Verdeman  said  that  if  their  chairs  were  as  hard  to  them  as 
his  was  to  him,  thev  would  think  that  the  debate  had  lasted  long 
enough  that  day.  The  Bench  very  peremptorily  decided  that 
the  sickness  of  one  of  the  parties,  was  a  sufficient  reason  for  an 
adjournment  even  at  that  eaily  hour,  whether  the  other  party 
agreed  to  it  or  not.  There  was  a  sharpness  in  Major  Roper's 
manner  which  appeared  to  charge  my  request  with  want  of  deli- 
cacy. I  felt  the  reproof,  and  acquiesced  in  the  decision.  This 
day's  work  strongly  reminded  Col.  Morris  of  the  remark  which 
1  had  made  to  him  about  the  last  speech  ;  that  when  my  Antag- 
onist began  to  switch  his  tail,  I  was  willing  to  leave  him  the 
field.  He  therefore  came  up  to  the  stage  after  the  adjournment 
and  asked  very  gravely,  in  a  low  tone,  "  Don't  you  think  he's 
beginning  to  switch  his  tail  .^"'  Mr.  Campbell  probably  heard 
that  many  others  viewed  his  sudden  indisposition  in  the  same 
light  :  and  their  suspicions  are  doubtless  strengthened  by  his  in- 
directly denying  in  the  preface  of  his  book  raj  that  he  was  really 
taken  sick  on  that  or  any  other  day  of  the  debate.  His  words  are 
as  follows  :  "  1  had  reason  of  grateful  thanksgiving  for  the  im- 
provement of  my  health,  during  the  seven  days  of  the  debate." 

The  next  day  was  Mr.  Campbell's  strongest  day  of  the  seven, 
and  sliewed  liim  to  be  what  a  lawyer  in  the  neighoourhood  call- 
ed him,  ••  a  very  considerable  man."  From  the  morning  until 
he  closed  the  discussion  in  the  evening,  he  was  thought  to  hare 
the  windward  of  me.  But  the  very  reverse  was  the  general  im- 
pression concerning  Satui'day,  the  next  day:  and  so  completely 
was  the  former  "ground  regained  in  my  closing  speech  that  even- 
ing, that  Mr.  Verdeman,  like  a  losing  gamester,  could  not  con- 
sent to  procrastinate  until  Monday,  an  opportunity  of  making 
reprisals.  He  obstinately  insisted  that  the  debate  should  con- 
tinue during  the  Sabbath.  In  this  he  failed,  and  his  champion 
failed  in  ever  again  obtaining  any  advantage.  On  Tuesday  even- 
ting it  was  rumoured  that  Major  Roper  could  not  attend  longer 
than  Wednesday.  I  was  advised  to  calculate  upon  this.  Du- 
ring the  six  days  that  were  past,  I  had  sometimes  had  to  abridge 
the  matter  of  my  notes,  but  in  general,  1  had  produced  palpable 
proof  for  every  assertion.  If  this  plan  had  been  rigidly  pursu- 
ed on  the  last  day,  I  should  probably  have  left  the  latter  part  of 
the  challenge  and  perhaps  half  of  Mr.  Campbell's  speeches  whol- 
ly untouched.  I  was  obliged  to  adopt  more  of  a  declamatory 
method,  in  which  facts  were  rapidly  strung  together  with  gene- 
ral references  to  evidence,  without  quotations  or  extracts.  This 
gave  a  more  popular  air  to  the  defence  of  that  day  than  perhaps 
any  other,  and  it  was  evident  that  as  the  house  of  David  waxed 
stronger  and  stronger,  that  of  Saul  waxed  weaker  and  weaker. 
After  my  recapitulation,  I  went  to  packing  my  books  in  the  trunk, 
calculating  that  if  Mr.  Campbell  had  resei-ved  any  thing  for  the 

(a)  Page  XI. 


47 

last  blow,  he  would  give  it  then,  when  I  appeared  to  be  doTie. 
I  was  not  disappointed.  Such  palpable  violations  of  truth  as  he 
then  gave,  required  an  answer.  I  arose  as  usual,  to  occupy  mj 
half  hour,  according  to  our  agreemert  and  our  previous  practice. 
Mr.  Campbell  forbade  me  to  speak,  and  appealed  to  the  Bench 
to  stop  me  and  secure  to  him  the  closing  speech.  After  consult- 
ing the  written  rules,  Major  Roper  announced  it  as  their  decision, 
that  I  had  a  right  to  proceed.  He  also  informed  us  that  he  was 
now  willing  to  remain  there,  if  we  requested  it,  until  Saturday 
night.  I  answered  that,  during  life,  1  should  love  him  that  for 
declaration.  This,  however,  was  the  least  of  Mr.  Campbell's- 
wishes  :  and  lest  an  adjournment  to  the  next  day  should  really 
take  place,  he  made  short  work  of  the  matter,  by  closing  the  de- 
bate with  the  following  speech,  viz  :  •'  Mr.  M'Calla  is  the  most 
perverse  niortal  that  I  ever  had  any  thing  to  do  with.''  These  are 
the  words,  and  all  of  the  words  of  his  last  speech,  according  to 
my  recollection  ;  and  as  they  did  not  seem  to  need  an  answer,  I 
gave  him  the  full  benefit  of  his  closing  speech,  according  to  my  de- 
claration to  Col.  Morris.  Yet  you  need  not  expect  to  find  this 
speech  nor  these  facts  in  his  printed  report.  There  he  gives  you 
a  few  lines  of  his  own  invention,  for  ray  last  speech,  which  would 
occupy  several  pages,  and  he  gives  twice  as  much  for  his  last 
speech,  without  once  recording  the  sentence  and  the  only  sen- 
tence which  really  constituted  his  last  speech.  And  what  is  more 
remarkable  still,  he  represents  me  as  trying  to  secure  the  closing 
speech,  and  applying  to  the  Bench  to  prevent  him  from  replying, 
and  observes  that  "the  Presiding  Moderator  read  the  rules  and 
*'  declared  that  1  [Mr.  Campbell]  had  a  right  to  reply,  if  I  [Mr. 
Campbell]  thought  it  necessary"  1!!  From  Mr.  Campbell's  in- 
vincible disposition  to  exchange  his  faults  for  his  Antagonist's 
virtues,  and  viceve^sa^  I  cannot  helpthinking,(and  I  hope  that  it  is 
not  uncharitable  to  think)  that  he  has  some  Egyptian  blood  in  him: 
for  this  is  the  very  way  in  which  Potiphar's  wife  treated  Joseph. 
She  charged  him  with  the  crime  of  which  she  was  guilty,  and 
claimed  to  herself  the  virtue  which  he  possessed. 

The  name  of  this  Patriarch  again  reminds  me,  my  dear  Uncle, 
of  your  name  and  that  of  your  Baptist  son,  who  I  hope  is  in 
heaven.  Ma;y  this  be  your  happy  portion,  after  your  revolution- 
ary frame  of  more  than  four  score  years,  is  laid  in  the  dust. 
Should  we  not  pray  also  that  this  may  be  the  truly  glorious 
destiny  of  the  friend  of  our  country.  General  la  Fayette,  with 
whom  your  letter  informs  me  you  had  the  pleasure  of  dining  in 
that  county  which  bears  his  name,  and  in  which  J  was  born  and 
brought  up. 

Ever  yours  affectionately, 

VV.  L.  M'CALLA. 

flUasgow  Forge,  37  miles  from  Philad.  Auj.  9, 1826. 


48 

No.  14. 
On  the  tfuth  and  genuineness  of  Mr.  CampbelPs  Report. 

From  W.  L.  M'Calla  to  the  Rev.  John  R.  Moreland,  near  Cynthiana,  (Ky,) 

My  Dear  Brother Whether  Mr.  Campbell's  opinion 

of  my  character  be  true  or  not,  your  fraternal  esteem  and  affec- 
tion must  be  evident  to  any  one  who  knows  that  your  first  sou 
was  M'Calla  Moreland.  A  long  residence  together  under  my 
father's  roof,  formed  a  christian  attachment  between  us,  in  which 
mj  heart  has  ever  rejoiced.  Through  grace,  I  have  never  yet 
been  ashamed  of  the  solemn  covenant  which  we  formed  and  re- 
newed with  God  and  with  one  another,  that  we  would,  by  the  help 
of  his  Spirit,  devote  ourselves  to  his  faithful  service,  in  the  face 
of  all  the  toil,  disgrace  and  suffering  which  attend  such  a  life.  I 
have  not  yet  forgotten  the  conspicuous  instrumentality  which  you 
had,  in  company  with  Father  Lyle  and  Brothers  Martin  and  Ran- 
kin, in  my  licensure,  ordination  and  installation  ;  nor  the  peculiar 
participation  which  you  and  I  afterward  had,  in  each  other's  dan- 
gers and  troubles,  in  the  good  and  glorious,  though  traduced  and 
insulted  cause  of  our  Divine  Redeemer. 

Your  letter  and  the  letters  of  many  others,  urge  me  strongly 
to  publish  as  soon  as  possible,  my  Discussion  of  Baptism.  De- 
lay, occasioned  by  Pastoral  duties,  you  will  justify  ;  and  con- 
stant sickness  will  call  for  sympathy  rather  than  censure.  Add 
to  this  that  my  circumstances  require  leisure  and  deliberation, 
as  well  as  faith  and  prayer,  on  account  of  the  wiles  of  the  adver- 
sary with  whom  I  have  to  contend.  With  this  you  are  in  some 
measure  acquainted,  as  it  was  you  who  informed  me  of  the  artifice 
used  for  obtaining  subscribers  for  his  book  in  your  congregation, 
by  the  holders  of  the  papers  telling  them  that  it  was  authorized 
by  both  parties.  You  told  me  that  justice  to  your  people  and  to 
the  community,  required  me  to  notice  this  fraud.  I  did  so  in 
the  Kentucky  Gazette  ;  and  at  the  same  time  expressed  an  opin- 
ion that  Mr.  Campbell,  from  the  want  of  both  the  means  and 
the  disposition,  was  not  quite  so  well  qualified  to  write  my 
speeches  as  I  was  myself.  The  want  of  disposition  appeared 
from  very  numerous,  and  sometimes  very  gross  misstatements  of 
my  words  and  sentiments  during  the  debate.  In  this  treatment 
I  was  far  from  being  the  only  sufferer.  I  read  some  pertinent 
remarks  of  Dr.  Mason's,  on  a  certain  point.  Mr.  Campbell  an- 
swered by  popular  declamation  and  personal  slander.  He  en- 
deavoured to  persuade  the  audience  that  the  Dr.  considered  in- 
fant baptism  not  as  a  divine  institution,  but  a  money-making 
scheme  to  aggrandize  the  clergy.  Basing  our  system  of  a  mixed 
church  upon  divine  authority.  Dr.  Mason  had  spoken  of  its  happy 
effects  upon  the  resources,  numbers,  and  safety  of  the  church.  In 
the  216th  page  of  Mr.  Campbell's  book,  he  openly  declares  that 
he  called  this  "Dr.  Mason's  grand  reason  for  advocating  a  mixed 
church  ;"  thus  assigning  to  the  Dr.  as  a  cause,  what  he  had  giv- 
pn  as  favourable  providential  effects  of  that  which  was  caused 


49 

by  the  authority  and  power  of  God.  I  observed  that  the  senti- 
ment of  the  passage  tnus  perverted,  was  simply  this,  that  irreli- 
gious men  helped  the  pious  by  their  money  and  their  protection. 
This  I  observed  was  the  sentiment  of  an  inspired  prophecy  also, 
which  says  that "  the  earth  helped  the  woman. "  Mr.  Campbell's 
answer  in  the  above-mentioned  page,  pretends  that  in  this  remark 
I  advocated  the  alledged  scheme  of  money-making  as  the  grand 
reason  for  our  system,  and  justified  Dr.  Mason's  assertion  to 
this  effect,  from  the  consideration  that  this  humanly  devised  meth- 
od of  raising  money,  was  a  fulfilment  of  prophecy  ! ! ! 

Another  perversion  of  words  and  actions  which  took  place  dur- 
ing the  debate,  Mr.  Campbell  has  substantially  recorded  in  page 
366,  in  the  following  words,  viz  :  "I  wish  it  to  be  noted  that 
"Mr.  M'Callahas  quoted  the  most  of  his  Paido-baptist  author- 
cities  from  my  debate  in  Ohio,  and  acknowledged  that  in  eve- 
*'ry  instance  they  are  correctly  given  in  that  volume."  In  an- 
swer to  this  I  told  him  that  for  particular  reasons,  I  had  quoted 
a  few,  but  not  most  of  my  Pedobaptist  authorities  from  his 
book.  And  that,  so  far  from  acknowledging  that,  in  every  in- 
stance, they  were  correctly  given  in  that  volume,  the  context  of 
some  of  the  passages  read  was  incorrect,  and  that  I  meant  to 
shew  in  its  proper  place,  that  he  was  grossly  dishonest  in  his  quo- 
tations. In  the  progress  of  the  debate,  I  did  shew,  as  I  hope  to 
shew  in  print,  this  gross  dishonesty  of  his.  Yet  he  has  recorded 
his  false  assertion  concerning  my  opinion  of  his  book,  and  to 
give  it  credibility,  he  has  left  it  unanswered  and  unrefuted, 
by  my  immediate  reply,  and  my  subsequent  exposures. 

In  No.  13,  above,  I  gave  an  instance  in  which  his  book  claim- 
ed my  words  and  actions  to  himself,  and  attributed  his  words 
and  actions  to  me.  In  page  66,  he  has  recorded  a  similar  error 
in  one  of  his  speeeches.  His  words  are  the  following,  viz  : 
♦*  Why  did  he  contend  with  me  so  long  in  his  correspondence, 
on  the  necessity  af  my  opening  the  debate  ?''  Now  here  is  a 
case  which  may  be  tested  by  the  evidence  of  record.  Let  any 
one  examine  our  correspondence  as  incorrectly  published  by  him, 
or  as  fairly  published  by  me,  and  then  say  whether  I  ever  once 
contended  with  him  on  the  necessity  of  his  opening  the  debate, 
or  whether  it  was  not  Mr.  Campbell  who  pertinaciously  con- 
tended for  the  necessity  of  my  opening  ;  thinking  thereby  to  se- 
cure the  close  to  himself,  When  this  point  was  lost,  and  both 
were  left  at  liberty  to  speak  until  satisfied,  Mr.  Campbell  open- 
ed of  choice,  and  not  of  compulsion  ;  for  although  I  preferred 
his  opening,  I  told  him  that  his  wish  should  be  my  rule  on  that 
subject ;  he  might  direct  which  of  us  should  perform  that  duty. 
He  accordingly  undertook  this  task  himself;  and  it  appears,  from 
his  subsequent  conduct,  that  he  was  determined  to  make  this  an- 
swer a  more  important  end  than  the  closing  speech  could,  by 
pleading  that  it  gave  him  a  right  to  dictate  the  course  whicn 
his  Antagonist  should  take  !!  How  I  should  hate  to  advocate  a 
cause  which  needs  such  Machiavellian  twistin-j;  and  pinching  and 
screwing  to  carry  it  through  ! 


Take  a  third  fact,  in  which  Mr.  Campbell  has  surreptitiously 
changed  places  with  his  Antagonist.  He  was  always  anxious  for 
Tiie  to  admit  that  sprinkling  or  pouring  was  only  a  figurative  bap- 
tism and  not  a  literal  baptism  :  whereas  I  always  insisted  that 
they  were  literal,  and  gave,  to  prove  my  point,  such  instances  as 
the  baptism  in  the  cloud  and  in  the  sea,  where  there  was  not  even 
a  partial  immersion,  but  sprinkling  only.  If  Mr.  Campbell  had 
fairly  stated  and  correctly  copied  my  words  and  sentiments,  he 
would  have  been  poorly  paid  for  l-'is  labour.  As  an  indemnifica- 
tion, therefore  for  his  disinterested  benevolence,  in  speaking  and 
writing  for  us  both,  he  takes  the  libeity  of  putting  into  my  mouth 
that  doctrine  v/hich  I  rejected.  In  what  he  professes  to  be  his 
own  speech,  in  page  301,  this  misrepresentation  is  found  in  the 
following  words,  viz:  "Like  Dr.  Rallstou,  he  [M'Calla]  argues 
"  that  the  word  haptizo  and  baptismos  'are  not  used  in  a  literal 
"but  figurative  sense'  in  relation  to  baptism."  This  was  to 
pave  the  way  for  the  splendid  triumph  which  he  has  celebrated  in 
pages  353,  353.  The  following  are  his  words,  viz  :  "  And  has  it 
"  all  come  to  this  that  Mr.  M'CaUa  with  Mr.  Rallston  and  others, 
"can  only  arguethefig'urafive  meaving  of  BAPTIZO  against 
'•'•the  li'eml:  that  '  the  ivriters  of  the  New  Testament  use  it  in  a 
^\figm\qtive  sense. 'P  [Let  this  be  sung,  doloroso  ed  affetueso.'] 
*'  Unpar'illeled  circumstance!  The  only  occurrence  since  Rev- 
"  elation  began  that  the  word  which  enjoins  a  religious  action  is 
"  to  be  taken  figuratively!!''  [The  next  should  be  sung  allegro 
ed  con- spirit 0.']  "  Kappy  result!  nothing  can  be  decided  from 
"  Gree!<  but  that  baptizo  is  used  figuratively.,  not  literally  in 
"the  New  Testament! '  What  a  dolorous  ?a\a  affecting,  and 
yet  what  a  brisk  and  spirited  display  of  eloquence  would  the 
world  have  lost,  if  Mr.  Campbell  had,  in  this  instance,  confined 
himself  too  strictly  to  the  truth,  after  the  obsolete  fashion  of  the 
Pedobaptist  Puritans  of  old!  Few  such  specimens  of  the  sub- 
lime can  be  found  in  their  buckram  productions.  Their  writings, 
however,  had  one  advantage,  that  they  could  bear  examination; 
a  durable  quality,  in  which  it  is  to  be  feared  that  Mr.  Campbell's 
book  is  deficient.  In  page  303,  Mr  Campbell  says  that  in  rela- 
tion to  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  "The  word  is  used  figu- 
ratively,'' and  1  am  guilty  of  agreeing  with  him.  I  said  moreo- 
ver, that  in  Coll.  2d,  and  in  Rom.  6th,  the  Apostle  speaks  of  a 
spiritual  baptism,  because  he  connects  it  with  a  spiritual  circum- 
cision and  planting  or  engrafting,  and  with  a  Spiritual  crucifixion 
and  death  and  burial.  Yet  I  never  did  say,  as  Mr.  Campbell  has 
atributed  to  me,  that  ''^  Baptizo  -drA  Baptismos  are  not  used  in  a 
"  literal  but  figurative  sense  in  relation  to  baptism."  1  never 
did  say  "that  the  writers  of  the  New  Testament  use  it  in  a  fig- 
urative sense"  "only"  But.  as  Mr.  Campbell  well  knows.  I 
have  Said  and  proved  the  contrary  of  this,  in  the  discussion  of 
passages,  where  he  made  a  dolorous  and  affecting  retreat  to  that 
very  figurative  baptism,  against  which  he  here  makes  such  a 
brisk  and  spirited  outcry.  In  page  S71.  he  makes  no  less  than 
five  assertions  of  the  figurative  use  of  baptism:  and  in  page  302, 
■•he  very  next  to  the  one  in  which  he  first  charges  me  with  this 


Si 

Ci-ime,  he  insists  that  the  baptism  of  the  Israelites  in  the  cloud 
and  in  the  sea  "was  a  figure  only.'' 

Misrepresentations,  such  as  the  above  were  made  so  frequently 
in  my  presence,  and  in  the  presence  of  a  large  audience,  that  W  r. 
Campbell's  character  stand?  much  higher  for  boldness  than  for 
veracity.  A  hearer  of  high  standing,  who  makes  no  pretentions 
to  religion,  and  who  was  unfriendly  to  me  before  the  debate,  said, 
during  its  progress,  (as  I  was  credibly  informed,)  that  he  now  be- 
lieved the  report  of  Mr  Campbell's  rejecting  the  revealed  law: 
for  he  had,  in  his  hearing,  thrown  contempt  upon  ail  of  the  ten 
commandments ;  especiallly  that  one  which  says,  thou  shalt 
not He  had  not  committed  the  commandments  to  mem- 
ory, and  therefore  gave  the  substance  of  the  ninth,  in  four  very- 
plain  monosyllables.  Knowing  that  my  opponent's  acquaintance 
with  this  Cre/on  accomplishment  was  far  superior  to  his  knowledge 
of  the  Alexandrian  Version,  of  which  he  boasts  so  much,  1  ven- 
tured to  inform  the  public,  as  mentioned  above,  that  1  did  not 
think  him  qualified  to  write  for  both  parties.  This  occasioned 
the  following  words  in  Mr.  Campbell's  Preface;  viz:  "Mr. 
"M'Calla,  dreading  the  appearance  of  this  discussion  in  print, 
*'  very  injudiciously  begins  to  condemn  it  before  it  appeared  :  for 
"having  prejudged  and  condemned  it  before  it  appeared,  he  has 
*'  shown  his  determination  to  deny  it  when  it  does  appear,  and 
"has  thus  depriv^ed  his  testimony  of  that  character  essential  to 
"credibility  and  authority." 

You  recollect  at  whose  instance,  and  for  what  reason,  I  put 
that  notice  into  the  paper.  Many  Pedobaptists  had  been  told 
that  I  had  a  hand  in  the  book.  Justice  to  them  required  that  the 
traud  should  be  exposed.  When  this  was  done,  I  was  so  far 
from  fearing  its  appearance,  that  I  rejoiced  in  the  prospect :  and 
I  have  rejoiced  ever  since  I  read  it.  But  its  author  took  care 
that  I  should  not  enjoy  this  piivilege  very  soon.  Early  in  May 
1824, 1  passed  through  his  neighborhood,  on  my  way  to  this  place, 
as  a  delegate  to  the  General  Assembly.  He  knew  that  I  wished 
an  o]>portunity  of  answering  his  book  in  Philadelphia.  It  was 
in  his  power  to  give  me  a  cop}'.  Hearing  that  it  was  just  through 
the  press,  I  sent  a  request  for  the  sheets,  by  one  of  the  most 
respectable  of  his  fellow-citizens,  promising  not  to  show  it  to  any 
one  until  such  a  period  as  he  would  allow  could  not  interfere  with 
his  interest  in  the  sale  of  his  work.  Regardless  of  entreaties, 
he  refused.  You  now  see  his  reason  for  saying  that  I  was  afraid 
to  see  his  book.  The  truth  is,  he  was  afraid  to  see  mine  ;  and 
you  know  he  is  in  the  habit  of  charging  me  with  his  faults. 

On  arrivij)g  in  Philadelphia,  I  found  just  such  a  fowl  as  Mr. 
Campbell,  perched  within  a  few  steps  of  where  I  now  live  ;  and 
crowing  defiances  to  the  whole  world,  muc!i  in  the  style  of  my 
former  opponent.  The  assembly  soon  adjourned.  I  visiitcd 
friends  in  New-Jersey  and  New-York,  and  returned.     As  no 


copy  of  Mr.  Campbell's  book  had  yet  arrived,  although  I  had 
earnestly  requested  that  a  copy  might  be  sent  as  soon  as  possible, 
I  accepted  the  proud  challenge  of  this  new  adversary,  a  Unita- 
rian Universalist.  He  also  soon  had  a  book  that  he  thought  I 
was  afraid  to  see  :  and  in  the  next  December,  while  I  was  en- 
gaged in  answering  his  book,  (an  answer  not  completed  till  the 
following  April,)  I  got  the  first  sight  of  Mr.  Campbell's  Report. 
And  now  that  I  have  got  it,  he  seems  to  think  that  I  need  not 
answer  it,  because  I  prejudged  it,  as  he  says,  and  as  my  Univer- 
salist neighbour  also  said  about  his  book.  In  both  cases,  I  was 
guilty  of  telling  the  people  that  I  had  no  hand  in  the  book  :  and 
in  both  cases  I  was  so  unruly  as  to  insinuate  that  I  did  not  like 
the  character  of  my  Antagonist  quite  well  enough,  to  subscribe 
every  forgery  which  they  chose  to  write  in  my  name.  This  is, 
in  their  eyes,  sufficient  to  destroy  my  credibility  when  vpriting  for 
myself:  and  on  reflection,  I  confess  that  it  should  stamp  a  man's 
character  for  falsehood  and  corruption,  as  readily  as  an  act  of 
scandaluui  magnatum  against  the  Pope  or  the  Devil  should  con- 
vi  ct  him  of  heresy  or  impiety. 

In  Mr.  Lowry's  evidence,  given  at  the  close  of  the  Preface  to 
this  volume,  he  says  with  per^ct  truth,  that  Mr.  Campbell's  ac- 
count of  the  debate  "is  essentially  incorrect,  as  to  the  matter 
"and  mannc/',  both  of  Mr.  M^Ccdla's  speeches  and  his  ownJ'^ 
With  regard  to  his  own,  this  is  evident  from  his  substituting  a 
speech  of  his  best  polish  for  the  single  pitiful  sentence  with  which 
he  closed  the  debate.  Yet  on  this  subject  his  Preface  uses  the  fol- 
lowing language;  viz:  "The  style  adopted  in  the  following  speech- 
"es,  is,  we  believe,  little  or  nothing  better  than  that  in  which 
' '  they  appeared  upon  the  stage.  On  my  part  they  were  extempo- 
"raneous,  as  all  my  public  addresses  are;  and  therefore  the 
"  style  is  of  the  familiar  and  diffuse  character,  such  as  might  be 
"  expected  from  a  person  who  did  not  know  till  the  evening  be- 
"  fore  the  discussion,  whether  he  was  to  open  the  debate  or  to  re- 
"spond  ;  whether  he  or  his  opponent  was  to  introduce  the  mat- 
"ter  to  be  discussed. "  Although  1  do  not  very  much  admire 
the  style  even  of  his  written  composition,  yet  all  who  compare  it 
with  his  real  speeches  will  give  it  the  preference.  Take  for  in- 
stance, his  last  speech,  which  he  had  fondly  hoped  would  be  a 
triumphant  topping-off  of  the  controversy.  "  Mr.  M'Callais  the 
**  most  perverse  mortal  that  I  ever  had  any  thing  to  do  with." 
Though  we  cannot  admit  that  the  style  of  so  short  an  address  is 
very  "  diffuse^^^  yet  we  can  agree  with  its  author,  that  it  is  very 
^'•familiar.''''  We  can  agree  also  that  it  was  extemporaneous^  as 
all  his  public  addresses  were;  and  as  he  had  no  previous  acquain- 
tance with  thematter  which  elicited  this  sally  of  eloquence  too  big 
to  be  recorded,  so  we  agree  with  him  lastly,  that  he  did  not,  before 
the  debate  commenced  know  ?vhat  sort  of  a  close  it  would  come  to. 
It  is  somewhat  remarkable,  however,  that  he  should  so  anxious- 
ly persuade  the  public  that  he  has  given  a  fair  report  of  his 
speeches  which  he  confesses  were  extemporaneous,  and  which 
were  not  recorded  by  any  stenographer.     His  vanity  has  disclos- 


ed  evidence  which  his  avarice  would,  otherwise  have  conceal- 
ed. ' 

As  his  own  book  proves  the  impossibility  of  his  copying  his 
own  speeches,  would  you  suppose  that  the  same  volume  gives  evi- 
dence, that  in  this  respect  1  have  the  advantage  of  him  beyond 
all  comparison.  That  volume  from  beginning  to  end,  proves  that 
I  have  abundant  means  for  writing  my  own  argument,  and  for 
correcting  his  false  report  of  my  argument.  Here  J  will  not  re- 
sort to  the  sophism  of  his  preface,  which  pretends  that  his  report 
must  be  correct,  because  it  contains  the  topics  presented  in  my 
letters;  as  if  the  mere  existence  of  a  text  was  sufficient  to  au- 
thenticate the  commentary.  But  in  this  same  preface,  INIr. 
Campbell  pretends  to  rejoice  that  1  had  preached  in  Lexington, 
from  the  same  notes  used  in  the  debate,  "  because,"  says  he, 
*'  we  have  no  doubt,  but,  in  so  doing,  he  has  been  obtaining  for 
"this  work  additional  evidences  of  its  correctness.''  He  says 
that  he  has  given  my  speeches  correctly  ; But  if  their  char- 
acter is  enhanced  by  my  addresses  in  Lexington,  my  addresses 

there  must  have  been  correct  too; And  if,  as  he  thus  admits, 

there  is  "no  doubt''  that  my  notes  would  enable  me  to  repeat  in 
Lexington,  speeches  originally  delivered  in  Washington,  will 
they  not  as  well  enable  me  lo  repeat  or  write  them  here,  and  to 
compare  them  with  the  speeches  which  he  has  forged  for  me  ? 

My  wish  was  to  curtail  the  debate,  by  confining  it,  as  much 
as  possible,  to  the  scriptures  :  yet  I  endeavoured  laboriously  to 
make  previous  preparation  on  every  point  which  my  opponent 
could  touch.  A  friend  or  two  enquired  of  me  before  hand,  how 
long  a  time  I  supposed  the  debate  would  occupy.  The  answer 
was,  that  Icould  not  tell.  I  should  rejoice  if  it  could  terminate 
in  two  or  three  days  :  but  if  my  Antaji,onist  took  a  certain  course, 
the  matter  which  I  had  prepared,  might  probably  occupy  eight 
days.  My  opponent  did  take  this  course ;  and  his  subsequent 
lamentations  over  the  unwelcome  effects  of  this  course,  prove,  out 
of  his  own  mouth,  the  stability  of  them  aterials  now  in  my  hands. 
In  the  71st  page,  he  has  recorded  the  following  words,  viz  :  *•  I 
*'see  from  the  course  or  method  projected  by  Mr.  M'Calla,  that 
*'the  information  I  had  a  day  or  two  ago,  concerning  the  quantity 
*'  of  matter  he  had  prepared  for  this  debate  was  correct  I  heard 
"from  a  respectable  source,  that  my  opjjonent  boasted  that  he 
"had  'eight  days  matter  prepared,'  that  the  discussion  of  his 
"  matter  would  require  eight  days  !  Indeed,  soon  as  1  heard 
"him  read  his  five  propositions,  I  felt  assured  that  this  discus- 
**sion  would  be  tedious  beyond  all  necessary  bounds." 

Besides  these  dreadful  notes,  I  brought  a  trunk  of  books  to 
the  ground.  In  the  conclusion  of  No.  12  above,  it  is  mentioned 
that  many  of  the&e  we^e  brought  at  the  express  request  of  Mr. 
Campbell's  friend  and  representative,  for*  his  use.  Instead  of  a 
polite  acknowledgment  of  this  attention,  this  detector  of  ungen- 
tlcmanly  conduct  endeavoured  to  make  his  wit  bear  upon  the 
mere  fact  of  bringing  a  trunk  of  books  to  the  stage  of  debate. 


Without  reproaching  him  for  ingratitude,  I  met  him  single  hand- 
ed with  his  own  weapons.  I  am  much  mistaken  if  he  did  not 
wish  chat  he  had  left  this  subject  untouched.  As  an  evidence 
of  this,  he  has  suppressed  it  in  his  report ;  and  instead  of  this, 
he  has,  in  the  very  same  book,  endeavoured  to  place  Mr.  Wal- 
ker in  the  ridiculous  attitude  in  which  I  placed  him,  and  for  the 
very  same  reason.  In  page  4ir,  he  introduces  Mr.  Walker  as 
saying  in  his  subsequent  publication,  "His,  [Mr.  Campben's3 
"library,  when  carried  to  the  stage  in  pomp,  presented  nearly  a 
"  cart  load  of  books."  Mr.  Campbell  then  says,  "  Avery  small 
"part  of  my  library  was  carried  to  the  stage,  but  it  appears  Mr. 
"  Walker  has  not  got  over  the  panick  yet ;  for  he  repeatei'lj 
"talks  of  that  'vast  pile  of  Greek,  and  huge  dictionaries  ferried 
"  over  the  sea.'"  If  Mr.  Campbell  had  given  us  a  tx'ue  copy  of 
Ids  extemporaneous  addresses,  in  his  "style"  "of  the  familiar 
and  diffuse  character,"  of  which  his  Preface  speaks  with  such 
graceful  self-complacencv,  we  should  have  had  much  more  une- 
quivocal evidences  of  bibliophobia  at  Washington  than  at  Mount 
Pleasant.  We  should  also  have  had  more  redundant  evidence 
from  his  pen  as  well  as  his  lips,  to  my  means  of  correcting  his 
report,  and  of  writing  for  myself. 

But  of  this  there  is  enough  even  in  his  present  report,  garbled 
as  it  is.     In  page  173,  he  says  that  his  antagonist  "•  projected 
this  easy  course  of  reading  and  commenting  on   the  gleanings  of 
his  leisure  hours."     These  gleanings  are  still  in  my  hands,  and 
it  is  as  easy  for  me  to  read  them  and  comment  on  them  now  as 
then.     In  page  113,  his  remarks   are   too   long  to  insert  here, 
though  they  must  not  be  permitted  to  perish.     This  handsome 
exhibition  of  clerical  meekness  and  gentleness  shall  be  given  to  the 
Baptist  disputant  in  No.  19  of  these  coHatei-al  papers,  as  one  of 
his  speeches.     The  substance  of  it,  however,  is  this:     Instead 
of  comparing  Mr.  M'Calla,  and  his  laborious  preparations,  with 
Mr.  Campbell  and  his  invincible  talents,  he  brings  a  boy  of  six- 
teen years  of  age  into  contrast  with  the  Archbishop  ftf  Canter- 
bury J  a  Prelate,   whose  tittle  would  please  his  taste  much  bet- 
ter than  that  of  the  Archbishop  of  Buffaloe  Creek  ;  and  whose 
honours  and  emoluments  might  possibly  rescue  him  from  the  de- 
grading occupation  of  publishing  spurious  books,   a  trade  not  a 
whit  more  honourable,  in  a  moral  point  of  view,  than  that  of  a 
dreadful-accident  maker  to  a  newspaper.     In   order  to  prepare 
the  minds  of  the  people  for  witnessing  with  compassion  the  fall 
of  a  great  man,  a  catastrophe,  which  he  seemed  to  think  might 
Bot  be  very  distant,  he  told  them  that  circumstances  might  ex- 
ist, in  which  this  ignorant  lad  of  sixteen  might  hold  an  indefin- 
itely protracted,  and  even  at  last,  a  successful  dispute  with  his 
learned  Lordship  of  Canterbury.     The  only  reason   which  he 
assigns  for  this  supposed  phenomenon,  as  yet  unheard  of  in  the 
polemical  world,  is  that  Mr.  Campbell  should  be  permitted  to 
place  in  the  hands  of  this  b.:y,  such  written  preparations  as  I  had 
in  iiiy  hands.     This  was  as  much    as    to  say   to   the  audience, 
"  When  you  see  me  tottering  and  reeling  and  falling,  give  me 


65 

an  interest  in  your  sympathy  and  respect,  for  my  fate  will  be 
owing  not  to  any  want  of  <renius,  or  information,  or  skill,  (for  in 
these  respects  I  have  an  Archiepiscopal  superiority,)  but  it  will 
be  owing  solely  to  the  inequality  of  our  w  eapons  :  I  had  more 
truth  and  talents,  but  alas  !  my  Antagonist  had  more  paper  and 
ink!!''  In  answer  to  Mr.  Campbell's  truly  original  argument  on 
this  subjecl,  I  would  ask  him  the  following  question.  If  writing 
for  one  of  the  parties,  and  tnat  an  illiterate  boy,  would  probably 
gain  the  victory,  is  it  not  safer  to  write  for  both,  and  thus  make 
sure  o{\i?  This  plan  he  has  adopted;  and  it  will  ultimately 
appear  as  fraught  with  wisdom  as  the  scheme  of  the  man  who 
was  not  satisfied  with  saving  half  his  winter's  wood  by  getting 
one  stove,  but  he  must  get  two,  and  thus  save  the  whole  of  it. 

But  we  proceed  to  quote  a  few  other  passages  from  his  own 
book,  to  shew  that  while  he  is  dealing  in  stoves,  I  have  all  the 
fuel.  In  page  146.,  he  introduces  my  half  hour  as  a  term  of  read- 
ing instead  of  declaiming.  "Mr  M'Calla  read  as  follows."  In 
page  87,  he  closes  his  half  hour  by  saying,  "But  I  shall  give 
place  to  him  to  read  farther  on  his  Jewish  Church."  In  page 
156,  he  says,  "  Mr.  M'Calla  again  resumed  his  )iotes."  In  page 
82,  he  says,  "  I  complained  in  my  last  address  that  Mr.  M'- 
Calla read  his  arguments  from  his  manuscript,  and  neglected  to 
respond  to  mine. ''  Instead  of  calling  this  an  occasional  reading, 
he  terms  it  in  the  same  page  "  a  constant  attention  to  this  little 
book." 

Repeated  observation  has  taught  me  that  my  little  books  are 
ot  a  different  description  from  the  little  book  mentioned  in 
Rev.  X.  9.  Howsoever  bitter  that  was  after  being  swallowed, 
it  was  sweet  in  the  mouth  of  him  to  whom  it  was  administered  : 
but  a  little  book  of  mine  is  bitter  as  soon  as  a  person  tastes  it. 
It  produced  the  very  same  wry  faces  in  my  Universalist  patient 
that  it  did  with  Mr.  Campbell.  What  a  remarkable  resemblance 
there  is  between  the  effects  produced  by  two  different  potions, 
upon  two  different  subjects  of  disease,  at  the  distance  of  six 
hundred  miles  from  each  other,  will  appear  to  persons  not  pres- 
ent, by  their  expressions  of  loathing  which  are  recorded  b}- 
themselves.  The  Unirersalist  uses  tlie  following  language,  viz: 
-'My  opponent  has  once  more  turned  to  his  little  book."  "It 
"appears  to  me,  and  I  think  it  must  also  appear  to  you,  that  my 
"oppo)ient  had  not  only  the  out  lines,  but  the  very  body  of  lus 
"argument  prepared  before  he  came  to  the  controversy  ;  for  he 
"is  going  strait>;ht  on  in  his  long  story,  without  taking  notice  of 
"aught  I  say."  "|He  has  his  mind  marked  out  in  a  particular 
"track;  for  having  anticipated,  as  he  supposed,  the  ground 
"which  would  be  occupied  by  his  opponent,  he  had  his  matter 
"  ready  cut  and  dried  to  meet  him."  "  While  I  am  speaking  he 
"is  reading  his  little  book,  without  attending  to  the  argun(ents  1 
"  may  oticr  against  his  doctrine."  Compare  these  Universalist 
a:roans  with  those  which  have  been  given  of  Mr.  Campbell's,  or 
^vith  the  following  in  page  67.     "Is  it  possible  that  he  is  going 


3(i 

<•'  to  read  all  the  time  out  of  this  manuscript  he  has  in  his  hand  : 

*'that  he  has  all  his  arguments  written  down,  and  will  not  aban- 
**don  the  course  he  has  prescribed  to  himself!  80  then  he  de- 
"  bates  with  the  pen^  and  I  viva  voce,  or  rather  he  reads  hisar- 
**  guKients,  and  dares  not  attack  mine. "  And  lastly,  in  page386, 
he  says,  ■■«  ■  •  '^  He  [M'Calla]  wrote  down  at  home  all  that  he 
«*  has  advanced  as  argument  in  this  discussion  j  and  knowing 
**  that  he  had  all  that  he  could  or  would  say  in  waiting,  he  at  the 
**same  time,  insisted  that  1  should  open  the  debate,  whereas  he 
"  was  determined  to  keep  to  his  notes,  let  me  take  what  course 
*« I  might." 

Although  the  above  extracts  are  far  from  telling  the  truth  in 
some  particulars,  yet  they  certainly  testify  in  the  strongest  man- 
ner, tne  fulness  and  the  accuracy  of  the  means  which  I  possess 
for  writing  my  own  argument,  and  for  exposing  his  report.  They 
moreover  show,  in  a  strong  light,  the  prevarication  of  the  fol- 
lowing passage  in  his  Preface  ;  viz  :  "  Mr,  M'Calla  rather  holds 
*'  out  the  idea  in  these  words,  [in  the  Kentucky  Gazette,]  that  he 
*'  has  as  many  notes,  or  the  same  means  as  those  which  I  possess. 
«'  Yet  he  [Mr.  M'Calla]  took  no  notes  himself,"  &c.  The  force 
of  this  passage  may  be  estimated  hy  remembering,  that  in  the  Ken- 
tucky Gazette,  I  expressed  no  wash,  and  claimed  no  qualifica- 
tioMs,  to  write  for  Mr.  Campbell,  but  only  for  myself.  My  pos- 
sessing the  means  ef  writing  for  myself  more  fully  and  correctly 
than  he  could  write  for  me,  is  then,  the  position  which  the  above 
remark  was  intended  to  refute.  He  knows  that  the  notes  writ- 
ten before  the  debate,  and  used  in  the  debate,  are  those  which 
were  contemplated  by  me  in  the  Kentucky  Gazette.  These 
therefore  are  the  notes,  the  existence  of  which  he  indirectly  de- 
nies ;  when  he  says  that  I  have  not  "  as  many  notes''  as  himself, 
nor  '•  the  same  means  as  those  which''  he  possesses.  Whether 
this  sly  insinuation,  (as  guilty  as  the  most  direct  affirmation  of 
falsehood,)  be  not  flatly  contiadicted  by  the  above  extracts  from 
his  own  speeches,  even  according  to  his  own  unfair  report,  you 
can  easily  judge,  by  remembering,  that  he  represents  me  as  be- 
ing able  to  repeat  my  argument  in  Lexington  from  notes  used  in 

the  debate  ; that  he  declares  his  belief  of  the  rumour  that  I 

had  eight  days'  matter  prepared; that  he  represents  his  An- 
tagonist as  taking  "  the  easy  course  of  reading  and  commenting 

on  the  gleanings  of  his  leisure  hours  ;" a  method  by  which 

Mr.  Campbell  could  enable  a  boy  of  sixteen  to  overcome  the  Arch 

Bishop  of  Canterbury  ; that  he  closes  his  thirty  minutes  by 

giving  way  to  my  reading,  and  introduces  my  turn  as  a  period  of 

reading,  not  speaking  ; that  he  expressly  says  that  "  Mr. 

M'Calla  read  his  arguments  from  his  manuscript,"  and  gave  "  a 

constant  attention  to  this  little  book  :"  Oh !  bitter,  bitter! ! 

that  he  declares  that  his  opponent  "  has  all  his  arguments  written 
down,"  that  "he  debates  with  the  pen,"  that  "  he  reads  his  ar- 
guments," that  "  he  wrote  at  home  ALL  that  he  has  advanced  as 
argument  in  this  discusion,"  that  "he  had  ALL  that  he  could  or 
would  say  in  writing,  * 'and"  was  determined  to  keep  to  his  notes. '' 


The  man  who  can  make  these  statements,  and  then  deny  that  I  am 
as  well  furnished  with  notes  as  he  is,  must  be  aUnito.'ian.  I  am 
glad  that  he  is  not  a  Pcdobaptist.  Mr.  Brewster  of  New-York, 
and  the  Editors  of  the  Columbian  Star  are  welcome  to  him,  and  to 
his  Episcopal  moderator  whom  jou  defeated  in  Paris  :  for  I  have 
not  yet  forgotten  that  you  made  the  floor  feel  as  hard  to  his  feet 
on  that  occasion,  as  the  chair  felt  to  his  seat  when  Mr.  Campbell 
fell  so  suddenly  sick,  in  a  debate,  in  which,  (strange  to  tell!)  his 
health  improved  from  first  to  last.  Neither  have  I  forgotten  that 
you  also  were  guilty  of  preparing  a  little  book,  in  defence  of  our 
blessed  Lord's  eternal  Deity,  in  consequence  of  a  challenge  re- 
ceived from  Mr.  Campbell's  Baptist  brother,  the  great  New-light 
Unitarian,  from  which  challenge,  however,  he  receded  in  my 
presence.  .  May  God  enable  you  ever  to  act  with  the  pious  fideli- 
ty and  manly  firmness  displayed  on  those  occasions. 

Yours  affectionately, 

W.  L.  M'CALLA. 


No.  15. 


TVie  Campbellisms,    transpositions^   supplements,' interpolations, 
suppressions  and  alterations  of  Mr.  Campbell's  Report. 

From  W.  L.  M'Calla  to  the  Rev.  Archibald  Cameron,  near  Shelby ville,  Ky. 

Dear  Brother Your  very  name  reminds  me  of  a  fact, 

which  you  doubtless  rejoice  to  hear,  that  materials  are  now  col- 
lecting in  Scotland  for  writing  the  history  of  your  countrymen, 
the  Cameronians.  Through  Jesus  Christ,  I  glory  in  the  thought 
that  the  vile  novels  of  the  basest  slanderer  on  earth  have  been  the 
means  of  bringing  once  more,  fully  before  the  public  eye,  th^ 
character  of  the  martyrs.  The  Devil  is  now  trying  to  finish  with 
the  pen  of  Walter  Scott,  what  the  sword  of  Claverhouse  left  un- 
done.    His  defeat  is  likely  to  be  as  conspicuous  now  as  then. 

But  your  letter  to  me  brings  into  view,  a  slanderous  novel  of  an. 
enemy  nearer  home.  You  seem  to  grumble  at  the  price  which  Mr. 
Campbell  has  asked  for  his  fictions  .:  yet  if  you  knew  how  ex- 
quisitely fabulous  they  are,  you  would  be  still  more  astonished  at 
that  disinterested  benevolence  which  could  ask  six  thousand  Dol- 
lars for  one  edition  of  such  commodities,  besides  something  for 
the  copy-right.  I  would  not,  for  all  the  dollars  that  he  ever 
made,  endure  the  labour  of  exposing  every  falsehood  of  his  book. 
It  would  be  almost  as  interminable  and  unprofitable  as  making 
war  upon  the  musquitoes  of  Louisiana.  But  as  you  did  not  wit- 
ness trie  conference,  you  will  have  patience  to  examine  a  fe\y 
specimens  of  different  descriptions  in  the  following  order. 

T 


1.  Camphellisms.  Mr.  CampbeH's  words  and  forms  of  speecli 
have  certain  characteristics,  which  if  not  peculiar  to  himself,  are 
at  least  very  foreign  from  his  Antagonist :  yet  with  these  words 
and  forms,  which,  for  convenience,  1  call  Camphellisms,  he  has 
thoughtlessly  plaistered  his  man  of  straw.  It  was  a  fashion  of 
his  to  call  me  by  name.  After  dropping  the  words  adversary  and 
accuser,  it  v/as  my  fashion  to  call  him  my  Opponent,  according  to 
Mr.  Verdeman's  express  request.  In  pages  288,  552,  353,,  it 
will  be  seen  that  I  have  to  follow  suit  with  him  ;  so  that  although 
I  did  not  use  this  form  three  times  perhaps,  in  the  seven  days,  he 
has  made  me  use  it  six  times  in  the  two  last  pages  referred  to. 
For  the  same  reason  he  has,  in  page  139,  made  me  talk  of  the 
scriptures,  as  exciting  us  to  a  virtuous  and  happy  life.  This  is 
the  language  of  him  and  his  school:  but  this  mil k-and  water 
style  is  no  more  mine  than  talking  of  obtaining  good  fortune  from 
propitious  stars.  In  pages  196,  204,  it  will  be  seen  that  he 
deals  in  such  words  as  formative  and  confirmative:  In  pages 
191,  192,  he  gives  these  words  to  me.  In  page  232,  he  gives 
me  the  plural  minutiss  instead  of  the  singular  minutia.  This  I 
set  down  at  first  for  a  typographical  error  :  but  on  reading  to  a 
note  in  page  326,  I  found  that  "every  minutise^'  is  a  Campbell- 
ism,  notwithstanding  his  boisterous  aad  contemptuous  treatment 
of  Mr.  Greatrake  for  such  trifles  as  th^se.  In  pages  ITS,  184, 
and  in  many  other  passages  of  his  composition,  Mr.  Campbell  him- 
self uses  the  word prove7i.  Many  ytars  before  the  debate,  I  re- 
nounced this  word  as  not  English,  and  used  in  its  place  the  word 
proved  the  real  past  participle  of  prove.  Yet  in  pages  119,  233, 
he  has  blistered  me  with  this  exploded  Campbellism  no  less  than 
three  times,  his  abuse  of  Mr.  Greatrake  for  the  use  of  such  can- 
tharides  notwithstanding.  But  Mr.  Campbell  has  ''proven'' 
that  the  notes  of  the  bishop  of  Pittsburgh,  and  the  Archbishop 
who  created  him,  and  the  Doctors  who  assisted  him,  have  made 
me  speak  exactly  like  my  Opponent.  If  these  gentlemen  have 
really  the  art  of  making  men  of  such  opposite  sentiments  and 
habits  speak  exactly  alike,  in  ^' every  minutiae,'^  would  jit  not  be 
well  to  get  them  to  attend  your  synod  ?  They  are  certainly 
needed  in  the  General  Assembly. 

2.  Transpositions.  This  is  one  of  the  most  important  arts  of 
a  Reporter,  who  wishes  to  make  money  by  writing  for  himself 
and  his  opponent  too.  If,  in  the  debate,  his  own  argument  should 
fail  him,  like  a  broken  tooth  or  a  foot  out  of  joint,  this  process, 
like  the  surgeon's  art,  will  enable  him  to  adjust  the  dislocation  in 
the  absense  of  the  enemy,  and  thus  to  set  his  argument  once  more 
upon  its  legs.  This  plan  of  concentrating  in  a  report,  arguments 
which  were  scattered  in  the  debate,  Mr.  Campbell  acknowl- 
edges in  a  note,  page  220,  under  the  pretext  of  its  promoting 
brevity.  But  as  he  has  transposed  A^s  arguments  for  the  purpose 
of  strengthening  them  by  a  better  arrangement,  so  has  he  more 
abundantly  shifted  my'arguments  and  responses,  for  the  purpose 
of  weakening  them  by  derangement.  Of  the  many  instances 
now  before  my  eyes,  I  shall  give  you  one  or  two  samples.     In 


59 

consequence  of  my  brethren  recommending  to  me  a  gi-eater  por- 
tion of  severity  than  I  had  shown  on  the  tirst  day,  Mr.  Campbell 
became  exceedingly  unhappy  on  the  second  day.  A  part  of  those 
remarks  which  exposed  him  to  the  ridicule  which  he  desired  so 
much  to  bring  upon  his  Antagonist,  he  has  pretended  to  record  in 
page  137,  during  the  second  day  in  the  woods,  the  correct  time 
and  place.  Otht  rs  of  these  iemarks  he  has  devached  to  page  167, 
in  the  third  day,  affer  the  weather  had  driven  us  from  the  forest 
to  the  Baptist  meeting-house  in  town,  at  which  time  and  place 
they  were  not  made.  In  both  cases  my  remarks  are  silly  in 
themselves  and  inapplicable  to  what  he  has  said,  in  consequence 
of  artful  alterations  made  both  in  his  speeches  and  mine. 

As  observed  before,  it  will  not  quit  cost  to  give  many  particu- 
lars ;  but  i  would  in  general  terms  give  another  specimen  of 
transposition.  A  remark  of  his  own  which  he  has  suppiessed  in 
page  204,  he  has  transferred  to  me  by  anticipation,  in  page  200: 
and  my  answer  which  immediately  followed  this  remark  of  his, 
he  has  detached  to  page  233,  as  some  parents  send  their  children 
to  a  distant  scliool,  to  keep  them  from  doing  mischief  at  home. 
In  this  as  in  other  passages,  he  has  made  such  alterations  and 
confusions  in  his  speeches  and  mine,  as  are  altogether  too  nu- 
merous and  too  contemptible  to  deserve  correction. 

3.  Supplements.  Although  Mr.  Campbell  would  not  like  to 
have  his  argument  supplanted  by  the  voluminous  irrelevant  con- 
text of  a  few  references,  yet  he  scruples  not  to  substitute  such 
compilations  for  my  speeches,  and  then  to  sell  them  as  my  com- 
position. Perhaps  he  thought  this  necessary  to  prove  his  asser- 
tion that  my  addresses  were  reading  instead  of  speaking.  In  a 
note  page  92,  he  gives  us  the  following  notice,  viz  :  "  Not  hav- 
ing minuted  the  precise  number  of  verses  read  in  each  reference, 
we  have,  in  order  to  give  full  satisfaction,  given  the  whole  of 
each  reference!.'-^  As  an  instance  of  his  disinterested  genei'osity 
in  thus  filling  up  my  few  minutes  with  good  things,  he  has  in 
page  170,  given  me  a  half  a  pasfc  of  scripture  instead  of  half  a 
thie  which  I  quoted.  This  plan  he  follows  in  quoting  uninspired 
writers  also.  Instead  of  eight  lines  which  I  quoted  from  Dr. 
Mason,  he  has  in  page  210,  and  following,  given  me  the  benefit 
of  three  pages.  If  you  suppose  that  for  this  supplementary  mat- 
ter, he  allows  mc  additional  space  in  his  book,  you  are  much 
mistaken  ;  for  the  above  passages  are  in  such  short  addresses, 
that,  if  I  ever  had  spoken  them  at  all,  (which  I  certainly  never 
did,)  I  should  have  got  through  them  in  much  less  than  a  quarter 
of  an  hour.  But  all  this  was  done,  (to  use  his  own  language,) 
"in  order  to  give  full  satisfaction-"  Would  it  not  have  given 
still  fuller  satisfaction,  if  he  had  taken  the  whole  of  my  speeches 
out  of  the  scriptures  and  Dr.  Mason's  writings,  instead  ofinvent- 
ing  the  greater  part  himself  } 

4.  Interpolations.  You  know  that  Mr.  Campbell  published 
what  he  called  a  debate  between  him  and  Mr.  Walker.     There 


was  nothing  in  that  whole  work,  which  presented  his  talents  as  a 
disputant,  in  so  advantageous  a  light,  as  his  retort  upon  the  Pe- 
dobaptist  Moderator,  for  objecting  to  his  asking  questions.  '  Yet 
in  the  237th  page  of  Mr.  Walker's  publication,  it  appears  that 
this  ready  and  exquisite  retort  was  not  spoken  at  the  debate,  but 
was  interpolated  in  the  Report  5  and  although  it  was  the  fruit  of 
subsequent  excogitation,  Mr.  Campbell  expressly  stated  that  it 
was  uttered  by  him  on  the  spot,  in  immediate  reply  to  the  Mod- 
erator. If  he  has  interpolated  the  whole  of  his  last  speech  a- 
gainst  me,  and  much  other  matter,  perhaps  he  tiiinks  I  have  no 
right  to  complain,  as  he  has  tried  his  talents  so  liberally  in  my 
speeches  also.  At  this  moment  I  see  a  text  in  page  147,  which 
is  not  in  my  notes,  and  which  every  one  will  see  ought  not  to  be 
there.  In  page  307,  he  begins  a  speech  for  me,  of  which  1  never 
uttered  one  sentence,  and  hardly  one  single  sentiment.  As  he 
is  making  me  speak  of  seals  in  page  190,  he  inserts  the  affair  of 
Judah  leaving  his  seal  with  Tamar.  For  the  same  reason,  and 
in  the  same  page,  he  interpolates  a  remark  upon  the  sealed  dupli- 
cates of  important  Jewish  contracts.  In  the  next  page  he  makes 
tne  refer  to  such  a  volume  and  such  a  page  of  Han  ways  Travels  | 
a  book  which  I  never  quoted,  and  never  saw  in  my  life.  So  in 
page  141,  he  makes  me  give  the  very  words  of  Mr.  Porter's  Dis- 
sertation on  Baptism,  in  the  24th  and  25th  pages  of  that  Disserta- 
tion ',  of  which  author  and  dissertation,  pages  and  words,  I  nev- 
er knew  any  thing,  until  I  saw  them  in  a  speech  composed  for  me 
by  Mr.  Campbell. 

5.  Suppressions.  Considering  the  fair  promises  of  Mr.  Camp- 
bell's prospectus  and  the  unequivocal  declaration  of  Mr.  Rig- 
don's  certificate,  is  it  not  strange  that  when  I  filled  up  my  half 
hours  so  industriously,  the  report  should  give  me  no  more  than 
6i  pages  for  a  speech,  as  in  page  316,  or  no  more  than  2^,  as  in 
page  250,  or  no  more  than  half  a  page,  as  in  372  ?  In  a  note,  in 
])age  356,  he  professes  to  give  only  an  abstract  of  what  was  said. 
In  page  176,  he  professes  to  give  the  sum  of  my  remarks?  and  in 
page  250,  and  243,  to  give  nothing  more  than  a  specimen  ;  con- 
fessing that  "other  extracts  more  lengthy,"  [another  Campbell- 
ism  for  the  philological  castigator  of  Mr.  Greatrake,] con- 
fessing that  "  other  extracts  more  lengthy'  than  those  which  he 
reported,  were  suppressed.  When  he  suppressed  the  matter  of 
Ills  own  speeches  as  he  confesses  he  did  in  pages  165,  327,  it  does 
not  appear  to  shorten  his  speeches  as  it  does  mine.  For  doing 
both,  he  always  had  a  reason.  In  a  bracketed  note,  page  155, 
he  tells  us  why  he  suppressed  both  his  remarks  and  mine  on  a 
passage  in  Macknight.  His  words  are  the  following,  viz:  "On 
^'  the  stage  we  read  and  commented  on  the  whole  passage  in  Mac- 
"  knight's  translation,  which  is  too  tedious  for  insertion  here,  we 
"shall  give  the  substance  at  another  time."  When  this  other 
time  occurred  I  am  not  able  to  say.  In  another  instance  he  quo- 
ted and  commented  upon  a  passage  of  the  same  author  in  He- 

',See  p.  74. 


61 

brews;  but  as  his  own  weapon  was  turned  against  liim,  the  argu- 
ments on  both  sides  became  so  "tedious"  that  he  suppressed  them. 

During  the  3d  day  Mr.  Campbell  asserted  that  Calvin  and  Beza 
were  the  first  who  taught  that  baptism  was  the  Christian  circum- 
cision. In  my  next,  I  requested  the  audience,  to  take  particu- 
lar notice  of  this  assertion,  as  I  should  afterward,  God  willing, 
produce  the  direct  testimony  of  the  early  fathers  to  this  point. 
He  endeavoured  to  screen  himself  from  impending  disgrace,  by 
reading  to  the  audience,  what  he  called  a  very  respectable  author, 
in  defence  of  this  untenable  position.  Suspecting  that  the  au- 
thor was  an  acquaintance  of  mine,  who  could  not  be  bolstered 
up  in  his  own  country,  by  being  called  the  Bishop  of  Lexington, 
I  requested  his  name,  and  it  was  given.  In  page  167,  he  gives 
my  request  that  the  audience  would  notice  this  false  assertion  of 
his  last  speech  :  but  in  his  last  speech  he  suppresses  this  false  as- 
sertion. He  entirely  suppresses  his  attempt  to  prove  it  by  his 
"respectable  author,"  and  he  suppresses  my  evidence  of  its 
nUsehood,  as  too  long  for  insertion,  as  he  expresses  in  page  230. 

During  his  report  of  the  6th  and  fth  days,  he  carries  on  the 
work  of  suppression  on  a  great  scale.  On  an  average,  he  allows 
to  both  parties,  less  than  five  pages  an  hour  :  and  as  his  address- 
es are  always  made  longer  than  mine,  he  very  condescendingly 
allows  me  at  the  rate  of  between  one  and  two  pages  for  every 
half  hour  spent  in  debate  during  these  days. 

To  tender  consciences  it  may  appear  difl[icult  to  reconcile  this 
proceeding  with  the  principles  of  veracity  and  honesty.  In  his 
Prospectus  he  promises  tliat  "a//  the  arguments  on  6o^4  sides 
"  shall  he  faithfully  and  impartially  detailed.''^  In  his  Preface 
he  says,  "  But  novv  when  the  work  is  completed,  we  can,  from 
"  the  actual  result,  fully  demonstrate,  from  the  face  of  the  vo- 
"  lume,  the  justice  and  propriety  of  our  proposals  ''  In  the  same 
Preface  he  says,  "  In  the  following  pages  there  is  detaUed  a  con- 
"  troversy  of  seven  days."  And  to  prove  all  this,  he  publishes 
Mr.  Rigdon's  certificate,  declaring  his  report  to  be  "a/wzV  and 
"/i/// exhibition  of  both  sides  of  the  controversy."  It  is  nof  ne- 
cessary to  multiply,  witnesses  to  see  whether  these  things  are 
true.  The  face  of  the  report  proves  the  falsehood  of  Mr  Camp- 
bell's pi'omise  and  of  Mr.  Rigdon's  certificate.  Can  any  one  believe 
that  it  takes  me  thirty  minutes  to  deliver  the  matter  cuntained  in 
two  small  pages?  Will  a  list  of  unfaithful  abridgments,  summa- 
ries, specimens  and  abstracts  pass  for  all  the  arguments  in  detail? 
Will  anyone,  acquainted  with  language,  say  that  in  these  "there 
"  is  rfe/mVe*?  a  controversy  of  seven  days?"  Will  these  be  con- 
sidered ?ifair  a.nd  full  exhibition  of  both  sides  of  the  controversy? 
Mr.  Campbell  knows  that  it  is  incredible  to  those  who  examine 
it,  and  he  therefore  ofters  explanations.  His  Preface  reads  as  fol- 
lows, viz,.  "With  regard  to  t!)o  length  of  the  speeches  on  both 
"  sides,  it  is  necessary  to  inform  those  who  did  not  hear  the  de- 
"bate,  that  I  pronounced  more  words  in  a  given  time  than  my 


.  62 

*'  opponent.  I  think  it  will  be  granted,  on  all  sides,  that  I  pro- 
*'  nounced  as  many  words  in  twenty  minutes  as  he  did  in  thirty." 
In  this  also  he  very  much  resembles  my  Universalist  opponent. 
On  reading  his  report,  people  who  know  the  rapidity  of  my  speech, 
may  wonder  that  his  written  addresses  are  longer  than  mine.  On 
enquiry  they  find  that  he  arose  very  slowly,  pulled  out  his  watch 
very  deliberately,  took  as  long  a  time  as  possible  to  adjust  it  on 
the  desk,  and  at  last  made  frequent  complaints  of  the  want  of 
matter  to  fill  up  his  time.  Yet  the  speeches  which  he  wrote  for  him- 
self were  longer  than  those  which  he  wrote  for  me!  Mr.  'Campbell's 
great  volubility  was  the  reason  which  he  gave  for  writitig  longer 
speeches  for  himself  than  for  Mr.  Walker.  Yet  in  the  239th 
page  of  Mr.  Walker's  reply,  I  find  that  Mr.  Campbell  wasted  a 
good  deal  of  his  time,  in  such  a  way  as  to  try  the  patience  of  the 
assembly,  and  at  last  produce  an  altercation  between  him  and 
his  opponent,  whether  he  was  not  bound  to  speak  all  the  time,  or 
whether  he  had  riot  a  right  to  spend  his  period  in  writing,  or 
otherwise,  if  he  chose.  A  Baptist  who  was  at  the  debate  in 
Washington,  told  the  people  in  Lexington  that  Mr.  Campbell 
had  the  truth  on  his  side,  but  that  I  had  appeared  to  gain  the  vic- 
tory because  I  used  the  tongue  faster  than  he.  And  from  that 
day  to  this  I  have  never  known  a  contrary  testimony  on  this  point 
of  rapid  speaking,  except  in  Mr.  Campbell's  book. 

Immediately  after  the  above  excuse  for  suppression,  he  adds 
the  following,  viz.  "As  the  topics  which  we  were  pledged  to 
*'  discuss,  were  chiefly  taken  up  in  the  first  five  days,  we  have 
*'  given  the  arguments  of  those  days  in  great  length,  abbreviating 
<'  oniy  such  matter  as  had  little  or  no  bearing  upon  the  subject? 
•'  such  as  the  argument  from  ecclesiastic  history,  the  origin  of 
«'  modern  sects,  and  such  matter  as  Mr.  M'Calla  introduced, 
»'  having  no  bearing  upon  the  controversy  whatever.  Of  this 
'*  the  reader  will  have  a  full  specimen  in  the  sixth  and  seventh 
"  days."  If  Mr.  Campbell  were  sincere  in  this  excuse  of  irre- 
levancy for  suppressing  a  part  of  my  speeches,  he  would  for  the 
same  reason  have  suppressed  the  whole  of  them:  because,  like 
my  Universalist  opponent,  he  declared  in  each  of  his  addresses, 
that  my  preceding  one  was  irrelevant.  Both  of  them  were  con- 
stantly asserting  that  I  had  never  yet  come  to  the  point,  that  I 
had  not  touched  the  subject,  that  I  said  nothing  to  the  purpose, 
nothing  that  w^as  in  the  least  relevant  to  the  question.  I  knew 
that  these  declarations  were  made  only  to  blind  the  audience, 
and  cover  their  own  confusion:  but  how  inconsistent  is  it  in  Mr. 
Campbell,  to  pretend  after  these  assertions,  that  only  two-se- 
venths of  my  matter  was  irrelevant.  Besides,  if  my  matter  be 
irrelevant,  would  it  not  enhance  his  cause  to  publish  and  expose 
it,  fully  and  fairly  according  to  his  promise?  or  would  not  such  a 
fulfilment  of  his  bona  fide  engagement,  at  least  prove  him  an 
honest  man?  What  would  he  think  of  Mr.  Lowry  who  took  notes 
of  the  debate,  if  he  had  issued  such  a  Prospectus  as  his,  and  then 
given  the  public  only  a  few  pages  for  Mr.  Campbell,  because  he 
thought  all  the  rest  irrelevant?  Yet,  according  to  this  rule,  such 


65 

must  have  been  his  report,  as  can  be  shewn  by  a  letter  of  his  to 
me,  accompanying  an  abstract  of  his  notes.  The  following  are 
his  words,  viz.  "You  will  probably  be  surprised  that  I  have  noted 
*'  so  much  nonsense,  and  matter  foreign  to  the  subject  in  debate. 
*'  This  indeed  needs  an  apology,  and  I  have  one  at  hand.  I  have 
<'  endeavoured  to  notice  every  argument  that  [Mr.]  Campbell 
"  used,  as  far  as  I  could,  and  also  carefully  to  preserve  the  plan 
*'  of  the  argument:  but  his  arguments  were  given  very  much 
*'  without  head  or  tail,  without  system  or  arrangement;  and  this 
"  necessarily  made  it  difficult  to  take  any  notes  of  them.  Also, 
'*  the  principal  part  of  what  he  did  say,  M'as  totally  irrelevant  and 
"  foreign  to  the  matter  in  dispute.  This  accounts  for  so  much 
*'  of  such  matter  in  the  notes.  I  am  well  satisfied  from  a  care- 
"  ful  observation  of  [Mr.]  Campbell's  course,  that  he  depended 
•'  for  success,  on  throwing  you  or  leading  you  off' the  solid  ground 
"  which  you  assumed  at  the  commencementj  and  when  he  failed 
«'  of  this,  he  found  room  for  little  else  than  scurrility,  boasting 
"  and  challenging,  and  of  these  we  had  enough." 

There  was  on  the  ground  a  professed  stenographer,  who  leaned 
to  the  Baptist  sentiments.  He  took  notes  for  a  while,  but  lost 
them  by  stealth  or  otherwise.  As  he  heard  Mr.  Campbell  con- 
verse freely  on  religion,  I  asked  him  to  give  mean  account  of  his 
theology  in  writing.  He  did  so,  and  volunteered  some  remarks 
on  his  conduct  as  a  disputant.  Considering  his  Baptist  preju- 
dices, it  is  wonderful  how  near  he  comes  to  Mr.  Lowry's  opi- 
nion. The  following  are  his  words,  viz.  '.'  I  attended  the  debate 
"  as  a  humble  enquirer,  doubting,  as  I  once  told  you  before,  on 
"  which  side  the  truth  lay;  and  on  the  third  and  fourth  days  I 
*'  considered  Mr.  Campbell's  ar;^uments  of  considerable  weight, 
"  so  that  I  was  rather  more  inclined  than  before  to  embrace  that 
"  opinion.  But  from  that  time,  while  you  continued  to  advance 
"  argument,  his  sophistry  and  want  of  candour,  which  had  before 
"  manifested  itself,  became  constantly  more  glaring,  till  the  con- 
"  viction  was  forced  upon  me,  that  the  cause  that  needed  such 
"  weapons  to  defend  it,  could  not  be  the  cause  of  truth,  could  not 
**  be  the  cause  of  God."  From  this  testimony  it  appears  that  Mr. 
Campbell  made  a  mistake  in  suppressing  my  speeches  of  the 
two  last  days  for  the  want  of  relevancy.  It  was  only  his  own 
that  were  irrelevant. 

My  antagonist's  excuse  for  this  conduct  contains  a  concession 
which  he  and  his  Baptist  friends  have  not  been  accustomed  to  mak- 
ing. It  is  "  that  the  argument  from  ecclesiastic[al]  history," 
and  *'  the  origin  of  the  modern  sects,''  is  wholly  irrelevant  to 
the  dispute  between  us.  Among  "all"  the  "  publications  on  the 
*'  doctrme  of  baptism,  that  have  come"  in  Mr.  Brewster's  "way, 
"  for  forty  years,"  I  doubt  whether  many  have  treated  this  ar- 
gument as  unworthy  of  notice.  I  could  almost  answer  for  the 
editors  of  the  Columbian  Star,  that  Mr.  Cau»pbell  is  the  first 
man  whom  they  have  known  for  fifty  years,  who  "  in  a  most  mas- 
"  teriy  manner,  supported  the  cause  he  had  espoused,"  without 


64 

directlj"  or  indirectly  calling  to  their  aid  this  argument  whiclf  is 
now  exploded  by  this  masterly  and  "unexceptionable"  produc- 
tion, pjven  this  "faithful  servant  of  the  church''  never  made  the 
discovery  until  the  debate  in  Kentucky.  His  former  publications 
brandish  this  weapon  over  our  heads  with  terrific  effect,  as  he 
and  his  admirers  thought.  So  confident  was  he  of  its  temper, 
that  he  could  not  consent  to  sheath  ii  at  my  earnest  and  repeated 
solicitations.  But  now  that  he  has  made  a  full  trial  of  its  metal, 
he  is  willing  to  lay  it  aside  as  irrelevant,  and  bury  the  aflfair  in 
oblivionj  pretending  that  he  never  wished  to  touch  a  matter  so 
foreign  to  the  subject,  but  that  "  Mr.  M'Calla  introduced"  it. 

When  Mr.  Campbell  had  finished  his  report  of  five  days,  he 
found  himself  in  straits  on  all  sides.  He  had  printed  his  pros- 
pectus before  he  ever  saw  Kentucky  or  his  perverse  Kentucky 
Antagonist.  When  he  first  endeavoured  to  get  subscribers,  he 
expected  that  the  debate  would  occupy  three  hours,  or  a  day  at 
most.  This  would  make  too  little  a  book  for  his  viev/s.  He 
therefore  promise*!,  in  the  same  volume,  animadversions  on  a 
book  of  Dr.  Mason's,  and  on  four  pamphlets,  written  severally 
by  an  Episcopalian,  a  Methodist,  a  Presbyterian,  and  a  Seceder; 
the  last  by  Mr.  Walker,  his  old  Antagonist.  According  to  his 
proposals,  he  could  not  demand  coinpensation  for  more  than  400 
pages.  After  all  the  shameless  suppressions  of  the  first  five 
days,  they  brought  him  at  last  to  his  342nd  page.  This  made  it 
necessary  that  he  should  in  some  measure  lay  aside  the  mask, 
or  diminish  his  expected  pecuniary  profits.  lb  lose  the  money 
appeared  to  his  disinterestedness,  the  worse  alternative.  He 
therefore  preferred  the  former.  In  addition  to  these  difficulties 
on  the  right  and  on  the  left,  perhaps  the  recollection  of  past  cor- 
ruptions haunted  his  memory,  and  the  consequences  of  future 
forgeries  stared  him  in  the  face  :  for  1  would  have  you  know  that 
in  treating  the  historical  topics  of  this  question,  I  was  obliged  to 
convict  him  of  some  very  naughty  things,  and  place  him  in  veiy 
bad  company.  For  particulars  I  shall  have  to  refer  you  to  mj 
argument  on  those  subjects:  a  single  specimen  it  may  be  proper 
to  give  here.  In  the  history  of  the  mode  of  Baptism,  I  was  oblig- 
ed to  show  the  unfaii'ness  of  Baptist  authors,  in  claiming  so  ma- 
ny Pedobaptist  writers,  as  holding  their  doctrine  that  submer- 
sion is  essential  to  Baptism.  Among  the  many  high  authorities 
quoted  by  them  and  by  my  opponent,  the  great  Dr.  Wall,  our 
most  eminent  controversialist,  held  a  conspicuous  place.  In  sev- 
eral parts  of  his  book,  I  shewed  the  Doctor's  otvn  words,  deny- 
ing the  fact.  In  one  place  I  read  a  quarto  page,  where  he  not 
only  denies  the  fact,  but  exposes  the  dishonesty  of  Dawfrs, 
(another  Campbell,)  for  charging  this  opinion  upon  such  Pedo- 
baptists  as  "  Scapula,  Stephanus,  Pasor,  Vossius,  Leigh,  Casau- 
"bon,  Beza,  Chamier,  Hammond,  Cajetan,  Musculus,  Piscator, 
"Calvin,  Keckerman,  Diodat,  Grotius,  Davenant,  Tilenus,  Dr. 
"Cave,  Walafridus  Strabo, and  Archbishop  Tillotson."  I  read 
Wall's  declaration  that  Danvers  quotes  "  all  these  in  such  words 
"  as  if  they  had  made  dipping  to  be  of  the  essence  of  Baptism." 


65 

I  read  also  Wall's  assertion  that  Mr.  Walkei*,  an  old  writer,  had 
shewn  that  this  Dan  vers  "  has  abused  every  one  of  them ; 
"by  affixing  to  some  of  them  words  that  they  never  said, 
"by -adding  to  others,  by  altering  and  mistranslating  others, 
"and  by  curtailing  the  words  of  the  rest."  In  addition  to  this 
I  was  obliged  to  shew,  from  Mr.  Campbell's  former  publications, 
that  he  was  a  legitimate  son  of  this  Danvers.  Is  it  any  wonder 
that  he  and  his  friends  have  become  sick  of  the  historical  argu- 
ment, which  he  compelled  me  to  canvass  ?  Is  a  man  of  his  prin- 
ciples going  to  puhjish  these  things  against  himself.^  Give 
any  convict  the  power,  and  he  will  soon  obliterate  the  records  of 
the  court.     To  nim,  at  least,  they  will  appear  irrelevant. 

6.  Alterations.  In  Mr.  Campbell's  report  of  the  debate  with 
Mr.  Walker,  the  latter  says  that  there  are  many  alterations.  In 
page  49,  he  makes  Mr.  Walker  "  ask  him  for  a  positive  com- 
mand for  the  institution  of  a  church  .^"  In  the  12th  page  of  Mr. 
Walker's  reply,  the  real  question  is  declared  to  be,  "  Have  we 
a  positive  command  for  all  the  acknowledged  institutions  of  the 
church.^"  What  a  difference  can  be  made  by  a  little  alteration ! 
After  his  debate  with  me,  he  discovered  that  his  incessant  chal- 
lenging rendered  him  ridiculous.  To  prevent  this  from  being  so 
visible  in  the  Report  as  it  was  audible  in  the  debate,  he  some- 
times drops  those  bravadoes,  and  sometimes  changes  the  word 
(shalletige  for  some  other.  In  page  72,  he  substitutes  the  word 
call.  "  I  have  called  and  called  upon  my  opponent,"  &c.  In 
the  argument  on  household  baptism,  I  read  some  quotations  from 
profane  Greek  authors.  Mr.  Campbell's  plan  in  such  cases, 
was,  to  endeavour  to  ^^  alarfti  the  natives,"  by  boasting  in  the 
most  extravagant  manner,  of  his  superior  acquaintance  with 
Greek  literature,  and  by  expressing  the  most  profound  contempt 
of  my  ignorance.  On  the  occasion  just  mentioned,  he  said, 
witWa  most  pompous  air,  "  Now  we  have  not  read  Rice's  Pamph- 
"leteer,  but  we  have  read  all  of  the  writings  of  Aristotle  and 
"Plato,  in  the  original."  In  his  report,  this  great  word  all  is 
altered  into  some  1     What  a  descent! 

"The  king  of  France,  with  twice  ten  thousand  men, 
"  March'd  up  a  hill,  and  then  march'd  down  a^ain." 

His  writing  specimens  and  summaries  and  abstracts  instead  of 
speeches  for  me,  gave  him  fine  scope  for  the  exercise  of  this  art. 
Many  things,  such  as  the  recapitulation  of  page  382,  and  the  bur- 
lesque challenge  of  393,  I  shall  not  take  time  to  explain  in  this 
place.  Page  128  gives  an  opportunity  of  testing  Mr.  Rigdon's 
certificate,  that  his  master  has  given  "a  fair  and  full  exhibition 
"  of  "  my  "  tQpics  of  illustration. "  Speaking  of  the  sameness  of 
the  Jewish  and  Christian  church,  I  argued  that  their  nominal  and 
circumstantial  differences  should  be  no  objection  to  the  doctrine 
of  their  ecclesiastical  identity.  Among  my  illustrations,  one  was 
very  familiar  to  the  audience.  I  observed  that  before  my  settle- 
ment among  them,  the  congregation  which  I  then  served,  met  at 
Garmantown,  and  was  called  the  Germantown  Church.  It  after- 

K 


G6 

ward  worshipped  statedly  in  Augusta,  and  was  called  the  Au- 
gusta Church.  Yet  the  church  ot  Germantown  and  the  Augusta 
church  were  not  two.  but  one  and  the  same  church.  Mr.  Camp- 
bell's fair  and  full  exhibition  of  my  illustration  excludes  the 
nominal  difl'erence  entirely,  and  expresses  the  circumstantial 
difference  in  a  manner  which  is  not  consistent  with  perspicuity  or 
with  truth. 

His  marks  of  quotation  in  pages  319  to  23,  shew  that  he  ^ves 
my  speech  in  the  words  of  another  person,  probably  Mr.  Rall- 
ston,  as  his  name  is  mentioned.     Besides  professedly  omitting 
one  extract  from  Dr.  Rice  in  page  286,  he  makes  me  cast  out 
another,  and  substitute  for  it  an  extract  from  Dr.  Rallston.  This 
alteration  is  repeated  in  the  next  page  and  in  280.     Instead  of  a 
diftuse  argument  from  Dr.  Rice,  he  makes  me  say,  in  page  26G, 
*'Mr.  Rallston's  condensed  view  of  this  argument  proceeds  thus." 
In  page  258,  which  introduces  another  substitution  of  Rallston 
for  Rice,  a  bracketted  note  contains  evidence  in  his  own  words, 
that  in  all  these  cases,  he  has  altered  the  diffuse  virguments  of  one 
author  into  the  condensed  views  of  another.   Another  note  in  the 
margin  of  page  252,  confesses  that,  instead  of  my  copious  ex- 
tracts from  Di".  Wall,  he  has  put  into  my  mouth,  "aTni/Jiafwe," 
*'  condensed  view,^'  from  J.  P.  Campbell's  sermon    In  a  bracket- 
ted note  in  page  300,  he  confesses  that  he  has  there  bestowed 
wpon  me  several  pages  from  the  same  author,  although  I  never 
quoted  them,  and  never  knew  to  this  moment,  where  they  are  to 
be  found  in  his  works,  if  they  are  to  be  found  there  at  all.     But 
he  justifies  this  alteration  upon  two  grounds:    one  is,   that  I 
"  seemed  to  have  taken"  my  argument  from  Dr.  Campbell;  ano- 
ther is,  that  that  author  "  precisely  expresses''  my  "■  sentiment* 
♦'  as  noted  down."    His  notes  must  have  been  remarkably  accu- 
rate and  wonderfully  useful;  since  they  enabled  him  to  guess, 
(however  incorrectly)  at  the  character  and  source  of  my  argu- 
ments, and  to  make  so  judicious  a  selection  of  the  author  in 
whose  words  he  should  express  my  sentiments.     Instead  of  giv- 
ing me  so  good  a  spokesman  as  my  friend  Dr.  Campbell,  he  has 
in  piiges  376,  377,  altered  a  speech  of  mine,  into  a  perfect  cari- 
cature of  his  own  manufacture.  In  answer  to  his  slanders  against 
all  Pedobaptists,  I  observed  that  the  men  of  Munster  and  of  the 
rustic  war  were  as  lawless  a  race  as  the  Crusaders,  whose  pre- 
datory bands  were  no  better  than  hen-roost-robbers.  Mr.  Camp- 
bell informs  the  public,  in  the  above  pages,  that  I  assured  the 
audience  ti^at  "some"  "of  the  German  Anabaptists"  "were 
"  robbers  of  hen-houses"  I  observed  that  the  tyrant  of  Munster, 
to  gratify  his  lust,  encouraged  polygamy  among  his  followers, 
and  so  perfectly  despotic  was  he,  that  when  one  of  his  fifteen 
wives  committed  a  slight  verbal  offence,  he  took  off  her  head  with 
the  sword  in  presence  of  the  rest,  who,  for  fear  of  the  same  fate, 
loudly  extolled  his  justice,  and  danced  round  the  dead  body  of 
their  companion  with  feigned  hilarity.     For  this  Mr.  Campbellj 
in  the  above  places,    substitutes  the  following  sentence,  viz- 
'  ^  Some  of  them  had  from  three  to  a  dozen  wives,  one  orthodox 


07 

Anabaptist  cut  the  hearls  off  three,  or  perhaps  thirteen,  of  his 
wives,  and  danced  at  their  exit.'' 

He  shews  great  art  in  altering  my  comments  on  scripture 
texts.  In  proof  of  the  ecclesiastical  identity  of  the  Old  and  New 
Testament  churches,  1  rjuote<l  Vlatt.  viii.  It,  12,  "that  many 
{^Gentiles]  shall  come  from  the  east  and  the  west,  and  shall  sit 
down  with  Abraham,  and  Isaac,  and  Jacob  [Jews]  in  the  kingdom 
of  heaven,  [tlie  church  on  eartli:]  but  the  children  of  the  king- 
dom, [the  unbelieving  Jews]  shall  be  cast  out  [of  the  church  on 
earth:"]  for  out  of  the  kingdom  above,  none  shall  ever  be  cast  out. 
Besides  other  follies,  Mr.  Campbell  makes  me  say  "that  the 
Jews  are  represented  in  Matt.  viii.  1 1,12,  as  being  members  of  the 
kingdom  or  heaven  or  evangelical  dispensation."  But  he  is  not 
satisfied  with  altering  comments,  he  does  not  hesitate  on  some 
occasions,  to  alter  the  sacred  text.  In  his  anxiety  to  prove  that 
the  Christian  Cliurch  was  a  new  kingdom,  and  not  a  new  branch 
of  the  old  Abrahamic  church,  he  quoted  Dan.  vii.  14,  as  follows; 
*'  And  there  was  given  him  dominion  and  glory  and  a  new  king- 
dom." The  word  "  nez^;"  was  not  given  by  him  as  an  allowable 
paraphrastical  interpolation  of  his  own,  but  it  was  repeatedly 
urged  as  that  empliatical  word  of  the  sacred  text,  which  proved 
his  point.  Uf  this  the  Rev.  John  R.  Moreland  was  a  witness,  for 
he  opened  his  bible  at  the  time  to  see  if  it  was  possible  that  the 
word  tieiv  was  in  the  text.  In  page  345,  he  alters  the  version  of 
Junius  and  Tremeilius,  and  gives  his  forgery  as  the  rendering  of 
those  eminent  translators.  He  tells  us  that  Mr.  M^Calla's  "ap- 
*'  plication  of  the  words,  'so  shall  he  sprinkle  many  nations,'  is 
"availing  himself  of  a  mistaken  rendering,  which  Junius  and 
*'  Tremeilius  have  corrected,  it  reads  '  so  shall  he  astonish  ma- 
"  ny  nations.' "  I  had  Junius  and  Tremeilius  with  rne,  and  shew- 
ed that  his  translation  was,  "  so  shall  he  sprinkle  [with  astonish- 
ment,] many  nations."  But  I  took  another  step  which  Mr. 
Campbell's  lull  and  fair  report  has  totally  overlooked.  I  proved 
that  "  so  shall  he  sprinkle  many  nations,"  was  a  correct  transla- 
tion of  the  original,  and  told  the  audience  that  the  book  which  I 
then  held  open  in  my  hand  was  Parkhurst's  Hebrew  English 
Dictionary,  which  would  shew  this  intelligibly  even  to  the  un- 
learned. 

It  is  well  known  that  Luke  i.  72,  is  esteemed  a  strong  proof  of 
the  identity  of  the  Jewish  and  Christian  churches:  for  it  repre- 
sents Christ  as  coining  not  to  destroy  the  Abrahamic  church  and 
covenant,  but  "  to  perform  the  mercy  promised  to  our  fathers  and 
to  remember  his  holy  covenant."  In  the  159th  page  of  Mr.  Camp- 
bell's book  against  Mr.  Walker,  he,  in  a  great  measure,  neu- 
tralizes this  text  by  an  alteration.  Instead  of  "  to  our  fathers," 
he  writes  "  by  the  Father."  After  it  had  been  written  in  two 
editions,  Mr  Walker  exposed  it  in  the  14th  page  of  his  reply, 
which  complains  that  it  is  far  from  being  a  solitary  error  of  this 
sort.  My  quotations  of  scripture  from  memory,  were,  during 
the  debate,  as  they  are  at  all  times,  apt  to  b«  inaccurate.  On  this 


68 

account  Mr.  Campbell  scornfully  told  the  audience  that  he  did 
not  believe  that  I  could,  from  memory,  quote  five  verses  of  the 
Bible  correctly.  In  a  note  in  his  335th  page,  he  alters  this  in- 
vidious remark,  and  considerably  aggravates  it,  by  saying  that 
Mr.  M'Calla  ''  appeared  not  to  have  any  one  paragraph  of  a  few 
"  verses  so  familiar  as  to  refer  to  it  without  material  alterations 
*' or  deviations  from  the  text."  That  this  novel  accusation  is 
perfectly  groundless,  will  appear  from  one  fact:  and  that  is  that 
in  all  his  addresses,  whether  spoken  or  written,  he  has  not  shewn, 
nor,  to  my  knowledge,  attempted  to  shew,  one  such  material  al- 
teration or  deviation.  Among  all  my  mistakes  he  has  not  been 
able  to  find  one  which  favoured  my  cause.  But  Mr.  Campbell's 
alterations  are  not  from  weakness  of  memory,  for  they  are  deli- 
berately written  and  printed,  and  that  in  more  than  one  edition. 
Neither  are  they  trifling  verbal  inaccuracies;  but  to  use  his  own 
words,  they  are  "material  alterations  or  deviations  from  the 
text."  They  are  comparatively  few  in  number,  but  so  well  se-- 
lected,  and  so  sagaciously  constructed  that  everyone  of  them 
tells.  Each  of  them  answers  some  important  purpose  to  his 
cause,  either  on  the  subject  or  the  mode  of  baptism.  His  altera- 
tions of  Daniel  and  Luke  materially  affect  our  argument  on  the 
identity  of  the  Jewish  and  Christian  churches,  and  of  course  our 
obligation  to  administer  to  infants  the  initiatory  seal  of  the  church. 
And  his  altered  quotation  of  Junius  and  Treraellius  is  professedly 
intended  to  make  Isaiah  exclude  sprinkling  from  the  mode  of 
baptism,  although  this  was  in  direct  opposition  to  the  literal  and 
real  import  of  the  Hebrew  original.  In  the  417th  page  of  his 
book  against  me,  he  very  awkwardly  and  evasively  insinuates  that 
his  alteration  of  Luke  i.  72,  of  which  Mr.  Walker  had  convicted 
him,  was  a  mere  typographical  error:  but  in  the  very  same  pa- 
ragraph, he  makes  a  statement  which  is  not  true.  It  is  that  *'all 
the  exceptions  made  Qn  "Mr.  Walker's  own  treatise,]  against  the 
faithfulness  of  that  statement  of  the  debate,"  written  by  Mr. 
Campbell,  "altogether  would  not  make  one  page."  Now  be- 
sides several  pages  of  exceptions  written  by  Mr.  Walker  him- 
self, his  publication  contains  a  dozen  pages  of  exceptions,  by  one 
of  the  Moderators.  Mr.  Campbell's  express  design  in  limiting 
these  exceptions  to  one  page,  was  to  prove  the  correctness  of  his 
report  from  the  testimony  of  his  antagonist.  He  says  that  if  all 
Mr.  Walker's  exceptions  "were  well  substantiated,  it  ([Mr. 
"  Campbell's  report]  would  appear  from  Mr.  Walker's  own  trea- 
"  tise,  to  be  a  correct  representation  of  the  controversy."  The 
Moderator's  letter,  which  is  an  approved  part  of  Mr.  Walker's 
book,  declares  Mr.  Campbell  guilty  of  "  the  propagation  of  false- 
hoods the  mi  st  naked  and  gross."  (a)  In  page  239,  he  gives  us 
one  of  Mr.  Campbell's  alterations^  at  the  close  of  which  he  ob- 
serves that  '*  it  is  sufficient  to  discover  his  disinclination  or  in- 
capacity at  any  time,  where  fact  is  concerned,  to  state  the  truth." 
"  However,"  says  he,  "  to  pursue  Mr.  Campbell  through  all  his 
meanderings,  to  detect  him  in  all  his  mis-statements  of  facts, 

(a)  See  page  233. 


69 

and  to  correct  him  in  all  his  aberrations  from  scriptural  princi- 
ple, would  be  almost  an  endless  undertaking."  In  page  11,  Mr. 
Walker  himself  says  that  Mr.  Campbell  "  appears  only  to  have 
*'  introduced  as  many  of  Mr.  Walker's  arguments  as  served  his 
"  purpose;  and  even  these  are  presented  in  such  a  mutilated 
"form,  that  he  (Mr.  C.j  might  the  more  easily  manage  them." 
In  page  12,  he  says,  ''  Out  of  many  examples,  I  shall  only  note 
"  a  few,  and  let  these  serve  for  the  remainder."  How  strange  a 
testimony  is  this  for  establishing  the  correctness  of  Mr.  Camp- 
bell's report!  Comparatively  a  few  errors  are  quoted,  only  as  a 
specimen  of  a  work,  which  has  so  many,  that  not  one  argument  is 

fairly  represented; of  a  work  which  propagates  falsehoods 

the  most  naked  and  gross;  to  detect  which  would  be  "  almost  an 
endless  undertaking;" of  a  work,  whose  author  has  a  "  dis- 
inclination or  incapacity,  at  anytime,  where  fact  is  concerned, 
to  state  the  truth:"  These  declarations  goto  shew  that  Mr. 
Campbell's  report  is  false  throughout,  as  to  fact  and  argument, 
wherever  falsehood  would  answer  his  purpose.  Yet  these  decla- 
rations he  treats  as  so  many  attestations  of  his  correctness.  If 
these  are  compliments,  it  is  hoped  that  he  will  give  me  credit  for 
more  than  one  page  of  them.  My  tedious  letter  to  you  will  shew 
that  I  cordially  agree  M'ith  the  above  gentlemen,  in  their  account 
of  his  moral  character,  and  of  his  labours  as  a  reporter.  This 
remark  applies  to  the  whole  of  his  book  against  me.  even  bating 
the  many  particulars  which  I  have  specified. 

As  you  are  within  a  day's  ride  of  Lexington,  you  have  proba- 
bly heard  that  your  old  acquaintance,  and  Mr.  Campbell's  parti- 
cular friend  and  brother  Dr.  James  Fishback  of  that  place,  has 
left  it,  perhaps  forever.  lie  passed  through  this  place  lately  on 
his  way  to  Boston,  to  take  charge  of  a  Baptist  congregation 
which  the  Rev.  Mr.  Wayland  has  lately  left.  A  Baptist  of  the 
highest  standing  informed  me,  the  other  day,  that  the  Doctor's 
avowed  object  in  going  to  Boston,  was  to  oppose  the  Unitarians. 
I  should  not  give  the  contemptuous  name  of  heresy-hunter  to  a 
truly  pious  and  Orthodox  man  who  would  go  all  the  way  from 
Lexington  to  Boston  for  such  a  purpose.  Neither  Mould  I  give 
the  odious  name  of  crusade,  to  his  long  journey  on  so  glorious 
an  errand.  Time,  however,  will  disclose  whether  Dr.  Fishback 
is  such  a  man,  gone  on  such  a  pilgrimage,  for  such  an  end.  To 
you  who  are  so  well  acquainted  with  his  character,  I  need  not 
mention  half  the  changes  which  he  has  undergone  in  politics  and 
religion.  From  your  knowledge  of  these,  you  perhaps  doubt  his 
qualifications  for  acting  the  part  of  a  reformer  in  Boston.  You 
recollect  that  while  he  was  practising  medicine,  he  felt  urgently 
moved  to  undertake  the  reformation  of  the  Lexington  bar.  Un- 
happily, however,  before  he  got  license  to  plead,  his  vievvs  of 
right  and  wrong  underwent  such  a  change,  that  it  was  difficult  for 
a  stranger  to  tell  which  of  the  lawyers  was  the  reformer  and  who 
needed  most  to  be  reformed.  Forgetting  his  original  design,  he 
endeavoured  (but  in  vain)  to  get  into  the  Legislature,  to  effect  a 
reformation  there.     Since  this  disappointment  his  chief  attention 


«fe 


TO 

has  been  given  to  religion,  or  rather  to  religions^  for  on  this  sub- 
ject he  might  say  as  Legion  did,  "  we  are  many." 

Although  his  literary  education  did  not,  I  believe,  go  farther 
than  to  read  the  Latin  of  Virgil,  yet  you  know  that  from  his  god- 
ly and  exemplary  parents,  he  had  what  was  far  more  important, 
a  religious  education.  When  a  student  of  medicine,  and  living 
in  my  Father's  house,  he  was  esteemed  a  believer  in  revelation. 
By  a  habit  of  espousing  any  cause  indifferently  in  colloquial  liti- 
gation, he  was  subsequently  known  as  an  infidel  for  some  years. 
Afterward,  "  when  he  returned  to  his  fori ner  sentiments,  he  was 
sometimes  a  Predestinarian  and  sometimes  an  Anti-predestina- 
rian.  He,  at  length  professed  to  oe  settled  on  this  and  other 
doctrinal  points  in  our  Creed,  and  joined  the  communion  of  the 
first  Presbyterian  Church  in  Lexington.  One  day  a  French 
Quaker  preached  in  our  pulpit!  After  sermon  the  Doctor  went 
to  my  Father's  house,  which,  for  many  years  he  very  much  fre- 
quented; and  advocated  the  Quaker's  notion  of  being  moved  bj 
the  Spirit,  as  to  the  time,  place,  circumstances,  and  matter  of  his 
discourse.  By  way  of  corrective,  I  opened  Dr.  Archibald  Alexan- 
der's sermon,  preached  before  the  General  Assembly,  and  read 
his  caution  against  this  and  the  opposite  error  of  denying  the  opera- 
tion of  the  Spirit  altogether.  After  a  while,  Mr.  Thomas  B.  Craig- 
head came  to  Lexington,  and  preached  the  latter  erroi .  This  also 
Dr.  Fishback  embraced,  although  on  the  opposite  extreme  from  his 
former  opinion.  He  and  I  belonged  to  the  same  prayer  meeting. 
One  evening  I  prayed  for  the  fulfilment  of  the  prophecy  of 
Joel,  "I  will  pour  out  my  spirit  upon  all  flesh."  When  we 
arose  from  our  knees,  the  Doctor  took  his  hat,  and  formally  re- 
signed his  membership  in  our  meeting,  because  he  could  not  cor- 
dially join  in  our  devotions.  The  Session  afterward  suspended 
him  from  the  communion  of  the  church  for  this  Pelagian  doc- 
trine of  his,  and  on  his  appeal,  the  Presbytery  confirmed  their 
sentence.  From  them  he  appealed  to  the  Synod,  in  whose  pre- 
sence you  and  I  both  heard  him  give  as  a  reason  for  leaving  the 
prayer-meeting,  that  its  members  prayed  for  the  out-pouring  of 
the  Spirit  of  God !  as  if  this  blessing  which  belonged  to  the  days 
of  miracles,  was  to  be  expected  in  our  day!  The  Synod  sus- 
tained his  appeal,  on  account  of  alledged  informality  in  the  ori- 
ginal process;  but  so  clear  was  their  perception  of  his  heretical 
pravity,  and  so  manifest  was  their  disapprobation  of  it,  that  from 
that  time  he  seems  to  have  entertained  little  or  no  hope  of  being 
authorized  to  preach  by  any  of  their  Presbyteries.  As  he  was 
not  sure  of  becoming  a  bishop  among  the  Anglican  or  Methodist 
Episcopalians,  the  Baptist  Church,  the  strongest  in  Kentucky, 
offered  the  fairest  field  for  his  ambition.  Before  he  resolved  to 
join  them,  he  was  a  very  decided  Pedobaptist,  He  had  a  slave 
called  Billy,  who  was  a  Baptist  Preacher.  I  have  been  diverted 
at  the  glee  with  which  the  Doctor  used  to  relate  his  controversy 
with  Billy  on  the  rebaptism  of  the  twelve  disciples  of  John,  by 
Paul's  order  at  Ephesup.  According  to  his  own  account,  the 
Master,  of  course,  triumphed  at  the  time;  but  the  man  gained 


71 

the  ultimate  victory,  for  the  Doctor  went  over  to  his  side.  Be- 
fore taking  this  step,  he  wrote  a  book,  a  great  part  of  which  was 
directed  against  the  internal,  sanctifying  influences  of  the  Spirit 
of  God.  After  his  immersion  and  ordination,  many  of  his  min- 
isterial brethren  shewed  considerable  opposition  to  him  on  account 
of  his  corruption.  To  secure  his  standing  among  them,  he  was 
obliged  to  preach  the  doctrine  of  spiritual  influences  in  as  plain 
and  strong  a  manner  as  he  well  could,  and  to  deny  that  he  had 
ever  meant  to  oppose  it.  Some  of  them  could  not  help  seeing  that 
his  book  was  in  direct  opposition  to  this  essential  doctrine  of 
Christianity,  and  they  could  not  be  satisfied  unless  he  would  re- 
nounce his  book.  But  instead  of  doing  this,  he  continued  to  cir- 
culate it  privately,  and  after  his  acquaintance  with  Mr.  Camp- 
bell who  has  written  much  against  the  saine  doctrine,  he  felt 
himself  strong  enough,  as  I  am  informed,  to  sell  his  book  publicly. 

The  sincerity  of  Dr.  Fishback's  professions  to  the  Baptists  of 
Philadelphia  can  be  tested  by  his  conduct  in  Kentucky.  If  he 
has  such  a  zealous  antipathy  against  Unitarianism,  why  did  he 
take  into  his  bosom,  Mr.  Alexander  Campbell,  the  disciple  of 
Robinson,  who  was  the  avowed  disciple  of  Priestly?  It  is  well 
known  that  Dr.  Holley,  Principal  of  Transylvania  University, 
is  one  of  the  most  depraved  Unitarians  that  ever  infested  Boston. 
For  Mr.  Campbell  to  advocate  him  is  natural.  But  who  can 
believe  that  Dr.  Fishback,  who  has  now  gone  all  the  way  to  Bos- 
ton, to  oppose  Unitarianism,  supported  this  Boston  Unitarian  of 
the  worst  stamp,  much  more  effectively  than  Mr.  Campbell 
could.  Verily  the  walls  of  their  northern  Jericho  have  very 
little  to  fear  from  his  horn. 

And  here  it  will  not  avail  in  proof  of  his  consistency,  to  say 
that  before  his  departure  from  Kentucky,  he  became  disaftected 
to  Dr.  Holley.  It  is  as  easy  for  rogues  to  fall  out  without  refor- 
mation, as  for  Pilate  and  Herod  to  be  reconciled  without  regen- 
eration. The  question  is,  what  made  this  Pelagian  sick  of  his 
brother  Unitarian  F  Was  it  any  rottenness  in  his  creed  or  im- 
morality in  his  practice.^  His  guilt  in  both  these  respects,  wai 
well  known  to  Dr.  Fishback  while  he  acted  as  a  tool  of  the 
President.  For  his  services  in  this  capacity,  he  received  the  de- 
gree of  Doctor  of  Divinity  ;  which,  from  such  hands,  was  per- 
haps as  good  an  evidence  of  merit,  as  the  gift  of  a  Bishopric 
from  Charles  the  2nd.  But  the  Doctor  was  not  to  be  satisfied  by 
such  a  parchment  .play-thing.  He  could  very  well  distinguish 
between  the  empty  barrel  of  a  Doctorate,  and  the  rich  cargo  of 
the  Morrison  Proftssorship.  The  University  could  easily  give 
the  former  to  any  man  as  a  bribe,  but  to  bestow  the  latter  on  a 
man  of  Dr.  Fisliback's  attainments,  would,  in  their  view,  sink 
the  ship.  It  is  this  that  made  the  people  of  Kentucky  laugh  when 
Dr.  Fisliback  deserted  his  old  master.  They  knew  that  this  hun- 
dredth change  of  the  most  chan  .cable  man  that  they  ever  knew, 
Mas  not  from  principle,  but  from  disappointed  ambition.  And 
they  now  know  that  the  man  who,  in  licxington,  supported  Dr. 


Holley,  frotn  the  hope  of  a  Professorship  in  Transylvania  Univer- 
sity, would,  in  Boston,  support  Dr.  Kirkland,  for  a  Professor- 
ship in  Harvard  University.  Andrew  Fuller  shewed  the  sinceri- 
ty of  his  opposition  to  Unitarianism,  by  denouncing  Robert  Ro- 
binson, the  greatest  champion  of  Anabaptism  that  England  ever 
produced:  Dr.  Fishback  shews  the  insincerity  of  his  pretensions 
by  taking  to  his  bosom  Mr.  Alexander  Campbell,  the  most  con-^ 
spicuous  disciple  of  Robinson  which  our  country  contains.  From 
him  he  was  infected  with  the  anti-homologetical  fever.  On  his 
admission  to  the  pulpit  of  Mr.  Dagg,  the  Baptist  successor  of  Dr. 
Staughton  in  this  place,  he  preached  against  creeds  and  confes- 
sions, in  such  terms  as  broadly  infer  that  all  who  adhere  to  them 
are  on  the  road  to  perdition.  This  is  a  line  preparation  for  set- 
ting Boston  to  rights.  The  arguments  of  Mr,  Campbell,  Mr. 
Duncan,  and  the  liberal  men  of  Massachusetts  have  probably 
convinced  him  beforenow,  that  the  Council  of  Nice  was  extreme- 
ly guilty,  in  excommunicating  x\rius  for  denying  that  Christ  was 
of  the  same  essence  with  God  the  Father!!  Consistency  will 
then  require  him  to  acknowledge  the  Christian  character  and 
ministerial  standing  of  his  polished  Arian  acquaintances,  at  least 
so  far  as  to  exchange  pulpits  with  thern,  as  some  specimens  of 
Orthodoxy,  already  settled  there,  are  in  the  habit  of  doing. 
When  he  has  gone  over  to  them  a  very  little  farther,  their  refor- 
mation will  be  complete.  Then  Dr  Fishback  will  have  the 
credit  of  converting  tl>e  Unitarians  to  his  system,  as  Dr.  Priestley 
had  the  credit  of  converting  the  Infidels  to  his.  ,  To  secure  them 
from  relapses,  it  would  be  well  to  see  to  it,  that  the  next  vacan- 
cies occasioned  by  the  removal  of  Orthodox  Baptist  ministers 
should  be  filled  by  Mr.  Campbell,  Sidney  Rigdon,  and  Mr. 
Duncan,  who  will  take  care  that  the  error  of  the  Nicene  Council 
shall  never  be  repeated.  From  such  reformers,  may  the  Divine 
Head  of  the  Church  deliver  his  people.  How  different  is  your 
course  from  that  of  these  self-conceited  men!  Instead  of  strut- 
ting in  what  they  call  the  march  of  mind,  and  instead  of  dream- 
ing that  your  wonderful  wisdom  is  always  making  improvements 
in  the  Christian  system,  you  are  satisfied  to  take  religion  as  it 
was  long  ago  revealed  in  the  Scriptures,  and  as  you  conscien- 
tiously and  intelligentry  believe  it  was  acknowledged  by  Augus- 
tine, by  the  worthies  of  the  sixteenth  century,  by  the  Synod  of 
Dort,  and  by  the  Westminister  Assembly.  For  the  Christian 
system  as  thus  revealed,  and  thus  maintained,  you  have  suffered 
much  obloquy,  and  are  willing,  if  necessary,  to  suffer  even  to 
blood.  May  Kentucky  never  want  such  able  and  faithful  cham- 
pions of  the  truth,  as  you  have  been.  Thus  prays  one  who  has 
watched  you  for  near  thirty  years,  and  who  hopes  in  time  and 
eternity  to  remain 

Your  affectionate  brother  in  Jesus  Christ, 

W.  L.  M 'CALL A. 

Philadelphia,  Se:  :?. 


No.  16. 
Mr.  CampheWs  Religiovs  Character, 

As  givft'i  by  Mr.  Greatrake,  a  highly  esteemed,  re£;;ilar  Baptist  Minister,  in 
Mr.  Cftmpbeirs  neishbourhoou.  Out  of  several  pamphlets,  we  can  only 
copy  his  4th,  5th  and  6th  Letters  with  apart  of  his  3d  lo  Mr.  Campbell, his 
circular  to  the  Western  Baptists,  and  a  few  extracts  from  his  "MAniatwe 
Portrait  of  Alexander  Campbell." 

Mr.  Greati-ake  to  Mr.  Campbell. 

the  cliaraeter  of  individuals,  in  yon r 

sphere  particularly,  is  fairly  ascertainable  in  all  its  essential  features,  by  com- 
ing to  a  knowledge  of  its  effect  upon  those  with  whom  it  has  estimation.  That 
you  have  many  admirers  and  adherents  there  is  no  doubt;  that  they  have  been 
sitting  at  your  feet  learning  of  you,and  holding  up  to  their  view  your  character, 
as  a  model  for  their  imitation,  is  equally  certain.  Now,  if  the  many  of  these  in- 
tiivjduals  with  whom  I  have  been  more  or  less  acquainted,  have  not  been  most 
bungling  scholars,  they  have  been  taught  by  you,  and  others  more  immediate- 
ly your  subordinates,  a  variety  of  sentiments,  which,  if  not  altogether  new,  is 
at  least  so  in  relation  to  their  influence  among  the  Baptist  churches  in  Ame- 
rica. And  though  it  is  in  the  chapter  of  probabilities  that  your  sentiments 
may  have  been  misunderstood,  yet  what  is  found  as  the  views  of  your  professed 
disciples,  will  be  necessarily  considered  as  the  production  of  your  labours,  and 
correlative  with  your  opinions.  In  the  first  place  then,  we  notice,  that  among 
your  adherents,  pupils,  or  disciples,  there  are  those  who  believe,  and  havepub- 
licly  (.leclared,  that  a  man  by  being  baptized  was  made  as  holy  as  an  angel !  or 
which  is  the  same  thing,  and  to  use  the  words  literatim,  that  "  he  came  up  out 
of  the  water  as  holy  as  an  angel." — Again,  it  has  been  said  by  some  of  them, 
that  "■  the  Almighty  liad  been  tired  ol  h'u  own  moral  law  for  1500  years,  when 
he  abrogated  it  by  the  New  Testament  dispensation,  and  that  it  is  no  longer  a 
rule  of  conduct  for  the  believer  in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ !" — Again,  many  of 
3'our  adherents  profess  to  scout  the  doctrine  of  the  Holy  Spirit's  immedii^te  in- 
fluence in  regeneration,  as  well  as  in  all  subsequent  stages  of  christian  life,  and 
to  denominate  the  well  known  characteristic  experience  of  spiritual  Israel,  a 
mere  phantasy,  or  mass  of  mysticism. — Again,  they  profess  to  believe  that 
prayer  is  no  duty,  but  rather  an  insult  to  the  majesty  of  heaven.  Such  are 
some  of  the  horrible  brood  of  sentiments  entertained  and  expressed  by  indi- 
viduals who  are  recognized  as  nnder-teachei-s  to  you,  as  well  as  others  who  are 
your  joint  hearers.  Now,  I  do  not  exactly  say  that  these  and  other  kindred 
doctrines  are  the  oil'spring  of  your  own  teeming  brain,  but  you  are  certainly 
and  strongly  suspected  of  having  begotten  them  in  their  ductile  pericraniums 
by  certain  secret  intercourses;  though  under  more  public  circumstances  you 
have  appeared  rather  to  disown  the  progeny.  If  such  sentiments,  sir,  are  really 
the  product  of  your  system  of  theology,  the  results  of  your  writings  and  your 
labours,  you  must  have  a  mind  circumstanced  to  enjoy  them!  and  I  can  con- 
ceive your  feelings  of  admiration  and  exultance,  while  you  fondle  with,  and 
hang  over  them  with  a  father's  love  and  father's  hopes,  to  be  closely  allied  to 
the  sensations  of  Milton's  Satan,  when  for  the  first  time  he  beheld  his  iucestu- 

L 


r4' 

0U3  gfand-chiidren,  the  progeny  of  sin  and  death,  y'clept  hell  hounds.  Wheth- 
er, sir,  you  be,  or  be  not,  the  teacher  of  such  doctrines,  is  of  little  consequence, 
as  long  as  they  have  the  authority  of  your  name.  Of  such  sentiments,  at  least 
some  of  them,  I  am  free  to  say,  that  they  exceed  the  whole  sum  of  blasphe- 
mies that  ever  I  met  with  in  the  character  of  men  or  devils,  and  the  propaga- 
tors thereof  ought  to  be  known  and  hung  upon  the  gibbets  of  public  infamy, 
But  leaving  every  thing  that  cannot  absolutely  be  identified  as  part  of  your 
opinions,  speculations,  and  teachings,  we  will  proceed  to  notice  what  is  as  tan- 
gible thereof  as  the  leaves  of  your  "  Christian  Baptist."  You  are  then,  in  the 
first  place,  endeavouring  to  create  universal  distrust  of  the  ministry,  in  all  de- 
nominations, bating  an  occasional  qualiiication  in  the  admission  of  an  indivi- 
dual now  and  then,  as  an  exception  to  the  degraded  character  you  give  of  the 
rest.  Those  individuals  that  are  yowv exceptions  may  be  calculated  upon  as  those 
of  whom  you  expect  to  make  partisans  in  your  own  scheme  of  operations: 
hence  the  occasional  allusion  to  them  in  diiferent  and  well-timed  expressions 
ofpanegyrick,  becomes  a  stroke  of  policy,  and  not  a  feeling  of  charity.  But 
for  what,  sir,  is  this  almost  universal  attack  upon  the  character  of  ministers 
tnade?  the  end  in  view  is  obvious;  and  that  end  is,  that  you  may  dissolve,  if 
possible^  existing  connexions  between  pastors  and  people,  and  thus  effect  the  first 
s>tep  towards  making  the  latter  your  followers,  or  the  proselytes  to  your  system  of 
theology,  under  the  direction  of  your  agents!  and  in  thus  doing,  consummate  the 
measure  of  your  fame  by  becoming  the  acknoivledged  head  of  some  new,  though 
yet  nameless  sect.  That  you  really  believe,  sir,  what  you  intimate  and  assert 
of  the  dishonesty  jand  selfishness  of  ministers,  I  do  not  doubt:  the  reason  is,  that 
you  never  had  the  necessary  mental  perception  to  see  the  real  and  spiritual 
pastors  and  servants  of  the  church  of  Christ,  and  having  met  with  many  that 
I'^ere  the  reverse,  and  the  constituents  of  whose  character  you  could  by  natu- 
ral affinity  analyze,  you  have  suspected  the  whole  to  be  of  the  same  base  ma- 
terial.— The  subject  we  shall  notice  more  fully  hereafter.  This  spirit  of  dis- 
trust we  know  you  are  labouring  to  diffuse  in  every  direction,  and  while  it  is 
evidently  to  the  end,  and  for  the  object  we  have  suggested,  you  have  the  ef- 
frontery to  pass  it  off  as  a  labour  of  love,  an  expression  of  dininterested  zeal 
for  the  church  of  Christ. — Again,  we  know  that  you  propagate  the  doctrine  of 
the  church's  independency,  so  far  as  to  exclude  all  reference  to  articles  of  faith 
and  principles  of  order  upon  which  they  have  been  founded,  (I  am  now  speak- 
ing of  the  Baptist  church)  this  your  writings  are  uniformly  understood  to  aim 
at.  And  really,  sir,  your  attempt  to  disseminate  this  sort  of  sentiment,  in  the 
Baptist  church  in  particular,  demonstrates  your  very  great  attainment  in  im- 
pudence, or  that  you  are  extremely  ignorant  of  the  constituents  of  social  unity 
and  order,  as  I  shall  hereafter  endeavour  to  exhibit.  Can  you  suppose  that  any 
reflecting  intelligent  member  of  the  Baptist  church,  will  ever  conceive  favour- 
ably of  that  man,  or  have  confidence  in  the  purity  of  his  motives,  who  attempts 
to  destroy  the  very  foundation  upon  which  the  denomination  has  risen  to  such 
imposing  magnitude,  in  such  fair  proportions,  and  with  such  solidity?  indeed, 
sir,  the  attempt  on  your  part,  or  that  of  any  other  person,  bears  testimony  of  a 
radical  defect  in  understandmg,  andean  only  leave  you,  (in  the  exercise  of  all 
possible  charity)  the  character  of  the  knight  of  La  Mancha,  or  the  phrenziei 
Swede.  ........  ^  ..........  . 


75 

SIR, 

In  my  last  I  noticed  some  of  the  moral  impressions  made  upon  the  mindis 
of  that  part  of  the  community  which  are  to  be  considered,  more  immediately-" 
your  disciples.  Having  adverted  to  certain  of  the  doctrines  held  by  them,  as 
well  as  to  their  gjeneral  sentiments  respecting;  church  order  and  g^overnmenti 
and  in  the  recoofnition  thereof  seen,  what  may  be  fairly  considered  as  additional 
features  of  your  own  character;  I  shall  proceed  to  raise  up  some  other  charac- 
teristics of  the  same  fraternity.  For  brevity  and  distinctness  sake,  I  will  fix 
your  attention  upon  a  solitary  church,  as  a  specimen  of  the  whole,  and  as  suf- 
ficient to  afford  you,  a  tolerably  correct  estimate  of  the  general  results  of  your 
labours.  In  this  church  there  are  two  Pastors,  or  Elders,  or  Teachers,  as  you 
please:  one  of  them  occupies  an  entire  sabbath,  in  expounding  a  certain  part 
of  the  scripture  to  his  flock,  who  are  immensely  delighted  and  edified  by  the 
luminous,  as  they  think,  discwurse;  and  run  to  and  fro  through  their  respective 
neighbourhoods  to  proclaim  the  erudition  and  the  knowledge  of  their  semi- 
pastor  who  last  addressed  them — while  he  hies  away  to  his  worthy  associate 
and  fellow-labourer,  to  tell  him  how  his  audience  had  been  astonished  at  his 
learning,  delighted  with  his  commentaries,  ravished  with  his  eloquence,  and 
established  in  their  faith.  He  then  proceeds  to  give  his  coadjutor  a  summary 
of  all  he  had  said  in  the  course  of  the  lecture,  which  is  no  sooner  communicated 
to  the  former,  than  he  very  gravely  tells  him,  that  the  whole  of  his  views  up- 
on the  subject  are  entirely  diiferent  from  his;  and  proceeds  to  give  an  exhibit 
of  what  he  conceives  to  be  the  legitimate,  and  the  true  meaning  of  the  subject. 
Our  lecturer  no  sooner  hears  the  sentiments  of  his  dear  help-mate,  than  in  true 
philosophical  mood  of  indiiference,  he  observes,  well,  brother  A.  if  what  you 
^ay  be  true,  I  must  have  instructed  the  people  erroneously,  but  never  mind, 
the  people  are  pleased  with  v/hat  I  said  and  I  am  pleased  too;  and  as  we,  only, 
are  interested  in  the  case,  I  do  not  see  that  there  is  any  occasion  to  take  further 
notice  of  it.  Besides,  brother  A.  your  charity  ought  to  cover  all  such  infirmi- 
ties; add  to  which,  you  know  not  how  soon  you  may  stand  in  need  of  equal 
forbearance.  And  sure  enough,  sir,  this  intimation  of  brother  A.  turned  out 
in  the  end  to  be  a  literal  prediction;  for  it  was  not  long  before  Elder  A.  had  oc- 
casion to  acknowledge,  that  he  had  found  himself  to  have  been  in  something  of 
an  error  for  a  long  time;  having  disbelieved  in  the  influences  of  the  Holy 
Ghost  upon  the  human  mind,  subsequent  tp  the  apostle's  days;  but  that  novr 
he  thought  it  was  a  New  Testament  doctrine — the  word  said  so.  And  though 
he  might  not  teach  it,  for  fear  of  collision  with  his  amiable  brother,  and  out  of 
reciprocal  charity;  yet  he  would  believe  in  the  doctrine,  to  the  end  I  suppose, 
that  his  faith  might  be  verbatim  et  literatim,  as  was  that  of  the  Jews  of  old, 
who  considered  themselves  orthodox  believers  if  they  knew  the  number  of 
words  in  the  Pentateuch,  and  kept  them  stored  up  in  their  head;  no  matter 
who  was  the  occupant  of  the  heart,  one,  or  one  legion  of  devils. 

But  to  proceed  with  our  sketch  of  the  character  we  have  noticed— leaving 
their  personal  difference  in  sentiment,  let  us  follow  them  to  the  field  of  their 
public,  social,  and  private  ministerial  exercises.  Behold  one  of  them  going 
forth  to  the  margin  of  the  river,  where  a  number  of  raftmen  and  others  are  en- 
gaged in  their  avocations:  these  are  unregenerate,  impenitent,  perishing  sin- 
ners, as  you  and  I  sir,  are  by  nature.     To  a  posse  of  these  characters,  your  K3- 


76 

der  directs  his  way,  tixnl  pommences  an  haran^ie,  by  tellino;  them,  "  that  thev 
are  not  under  the  law;  thnt  the  ten  commandments  are  ahro;5ated,  as  well  as 
the  ceremonies  of  the  Old  Tectament  dispensation;  that  the  world  is  fall  of 
priestcraft;  that  preachers  of  the  gospel,  as  they  call  themselves,  ai-e  only 
preaching  for  money;  that  himself,  and  the  system  with  which  he  revolves 
round  his  uplendid  centre,  is  the  true  light."  With  a  hundred  other  things  of 
the  same  sort,  and  d  thousand  other,  and  different  sayings,  quite  as  irrelevant 
to  the  gospel.  After  having  finished  his  address,  his  auditors  separate  from  him, 
some  saying,  that  he  is  a  noble  felloM'^,  that  he  has  extracted  from  their  con- 
science, something  like  fragments  of  the  law,  that  had  been  there  ail  their 
lives,  like  thorns,  when  they  devised,  or  perpetrated,  what  they  had  been 
taught  were  crimes.  Others  declare  him  to  be  truly  an  antinomian — others 
understand  him  to  denounce  the  doctrine  of  the  Spirit's  influence,  and  to  treat 
it  iis  an  idle  notion — others  understand  him  as  absolutely  calling  in  question 
the  divinity  of  Jesus  Christ — and  a  socinian  present  cries  out,  m^  brother — 
while  others  believe,  that  in  this  single  address,  he  has  advocated,  and  rebut- 
ted all.  and  every  one  of  these  sentiments;  together  with  many  more .  Are 
you  not  delighted,  sir,  with  the  clearness  of  this  man's  perceptions — the  intel- 
ligence of  his  mind — the  piety  of  his  doctrines — the  solidity  of  his  system  al- 
together; when  the  exhibition  thereof,  produces  no  more  opposition  of  view? 
among  his  hearers,  than  just — antipodes.  Paul  could  rejoice  that  he  was  a  fa- 
ther to  Timotliy — But  O!  how  supei-lative  must  be  your  joy  to  be  the  father 
of  so  many  children  as  you  are,  of  whom  the  above  character  is  a  specimen  ; 
how  enviable  must  be  the  lot  of  your  disciples  to  have  provision  made  for  their 
guidance  of  such  able  leaders,  and  intelligent  instructors.  "  Treading  the 
crude  consistence,  half  on  foot,  half  flying — o'er  bog,  or  steep,  through  strait 
rough,  dense,  or  rare ;  they  swim,  or  sink,  or  wade,  orcreep,  or  fly."  While* 
indeed,  the  hubbub  of  their  jarring  notions  and  sentiments,  carries  forward 
the  resemblance  between  their  situation  and  that  of  the  celebrated  personage, 
to  whom  the  above  extract  is  originally  applied,  when  he  was  groping  his  way. 
through  chaos  and  old  night.  We  will  follow  the  same  Elder  of  yours  to  the 
exercises  of  social  worship.  See  him  recumbent  upon  some  three  or  four 
chairs,  with  his  segar  in  his  mouth  ;  disposing  of  its  smoke  with  one  respira- 
tion, and  going  on  by  breaks,  witli  a  lecture,  on  some  part  of  divine  truth,  with 
another — or,  standing  up  at  the  fire,  mingling  the  fumes  of  his  tobacco  pipe, 
with  the  breath  of  prayer  and  praise  issuing  from  the  mouth  of  his  professed 
brethren,  while  engaged  in  their  devotions!  but  we  will  stop ;  nor  wound  any 
more  the  religious  sensibilities  of  the  children  of  God,  by  a  further  exhibit  of 
the  flagrant  abominations,  and  blasphemous  irreverence  towards  '■'■him  whom 
their  soul  loveth."  Leaving  your  Elders,  sir,  we  come  to  notice,  briefly,  some 
of  the  features  of  the  character  belonging  to  those  we  may  call  your  lay -men : 
and  well  do  we  find  established,  in  refering  to  this  part  of  the  subject,  the  pro- 
phet's adage,  "like  priest,  like  people;"  the  most  of  whom,  connected  with 
you,  shew,  conspicuously,  that  vanity  rules  in  and  over  them.  They  are  not  so 
politic  as  you,  sir ;  they  cannot,  indeed,  put  any  restraint  upon  their  ruling 
passion ;  but,  under  its  influence,  many  of  them, "  play  such  fantastic  tricks  be- 
fore high  heaven,"  as,  if  not  to  make  angels  weep,  atleastto  make  devils  laugh, 
and  fill  with  sorrow  the  breast  of  every  real  christian  ;  particularly  those  of 
the  Baptist  denoniiaation,  upon  whom,  their  character  and  conduct  brings  the 


reproach  of  the  wicked,  the  contempt  of  the  wise,  and  pity  of  the  good.  As  two 
or  three  specimens  of  the  whole  fraternity,  we  remark — here  is  a  man  who  has 
borne  the  name,  and  made  the  profession  of  almost  every  sect  in  Chiistendom 
—say,  Catholic,  Episcopalian,  Presbyterian,  Methodist,  Universalist,  Socinian: 
at  last  he  comes  to  your  society,  professing  to  be  a  convert  to  your  theology, 
(though  that's  all  a  gratuitous  assertion,  for  mortal  ken  never  yet  discerned 
what  it  is)  he  says  that  1'ie  will  jom  your  fraternity,  and  at  his  induction  deli- 
ver an  address  upon  baptism.  All  this  being  acceded  to,  the  time  arrives  when 
he  is  to  be  baptized :  and  at  the  water  he  delivers  an  harangue  of  five  hours 
in  length,  or  in  other  words,  gives  a  recitation  of  what  you  have  compiled  and 
published  upon  that  ordinance,  from  the  writings  of  other  men.  And  to  crown 
the  inconsistency  of  the  whole,  you,  sir,  the  would  be  star  of  the  west;  you,  be- 
come his  amanuensis,  and  the  pitiful  caterer  to  this  vain  man's  vanity,  by  vir- 
tually professing,  to  be  taking  down  notes  of  something  new  upon  the  subject, 
from  what  this  speckled  disciple  of  yours  is  saying ;  whereas,  in  fact,  he  is  ad- 
vancing nothing  but  what  is  as  old  as  his  great-grand- father,  i^ow,  sir,  think 
you,  that  if  this  man  had  been  a  poor,  humble,  broken-hearted  sinner,  as  he 
ought  to  have  been  before  he  was  baptised,thsit  he  would  have  had  any  disposi- 
tion to  obtrude  himself  upon  the  notice  of  men  at  such  a  time?  particularly, 
after  having  exhibited  such  an  unsettled  mind  through  a  period  of  many  years 
as  he  did,  and  such  a  fitful  scene  of  profession  and  reprofession.  Or,  sir,  if  you 
had  been  a  regenerated  man  yourself,  and  a  fit  person  to  be  a  minister  of  the 
gospel,  do  you  think  that  your  thoughts,  and  your  gratification,  would  have 
been  in,  or  your  time  and  labour  devoted  to,  making  a  record  of  what  this  poor 
deluded  man  said  about  the  mode  of  baptism?  no,  sir,  you  would  not ;  but  in- 
stead of  this,  your  soul  would  have  burned  within  you  to  make,  if  possible,  the 
conversion  of  this  man,  had  he  been  converted,  the  means,  under  the  Holy  Ghost, 
of  making  your  auditors,  or  the  spectators,  humble  penitents  towards  God,  and 
spiritual  believers  in  Christ  Jesus — and  not  mtrely  proselytes  to  baptism.  In- 
stead of  this,  what  has  been  done?  the  disciple  has  had  his  vanity  gratified,  by 
being  the  orater  of  the  day;  and  rising  (like  an  ignis  fatuus  from  the  bog)  for 
a  few  moments,  a  little  above  the  level  to  which  nature  designed  him  in  the 
community,  to  sink  again  to  the  same  place,  confirmed  in  a  delusion,  perhaps, 
that  shall  only  be  dissipated  in  hell :  (I  mean  by  delusion,  that  baptism 
M  salvation.)  The  vanity  of  the  society  to  which  he  has  connected  him- 
self, is  gratified  in  being  numerieally  enlarged;  and  your  vanity,  sir,  was 
Ratified,  in  being  recognized,  as  the  mighty  agent  by  which  this  Jack-o'-the 
lanthern  professor  was  caught,  and  safely  secured  within  the  pale  of  your  so- 
ciety. Here  then,  is  an  expression  of  the  vanity  of  your  society  ;  and  the 
same  is  visible  in  nearly  all  your  followers.  If  they  read  the  Scriptures,  it  is 
only  to  get  some  additional  notions  about  them,  to  the  end,  that  they  may  gra- 
tify their  pride  and  their  vanity  in  the  exhibition  of  these  speculations.  Their 
tongues  are  ever  going  like  the  pendulum  of  a  clock,  and  with  as  much  noise, 
almost,  as  the  machinery  of  a  steam  engine;  indeed,  it  is  the  fullest  trial  of 
the  saint's  patience  to  listen  to  them  :  and  that  is  the  best  tiding  that  results 
from  their  acquirements.  Some  of  them  say,tliey  have  been  regenerated — 
some  of  them  say,  there  is  no  regeneration — some  of  them  admit,  that 
part  of  their  brethien  deny  the  s]iirit"s  influence  in  any  stage  of  the 
christian's  life,  but  that  they  believe  it,  though  they    consider  disbelief 


as  nothing'  essentially  defective  in  faith — s,ODie  oi'  them  say,  that  they 
would  never  have  fellowship  with  teacher  or  laymen  in  their  body,  who  denied 
the  spirit's  influence,  and  that  none  of  their  brethren  do  it ;  while  others  main- 
tain, that  the  word  is  the  spirit,  and  the  spirit  is  the  word,  and  that  it  is  no 
matter  whether  there  is  any  spirit  or  no  :  meditation,  social^  family  and  closet 
■prayer,  are,  for  the  most  part,  esteemed  a  matter  of  foolishness  with  them.  I 
have,  sir,  you  will  perceive,  made  some  exceptions  among  those  who  are  your 
followers  from  the  character  I  have  been  briefly  exhibiting  of  them.  Deep  - 
ly  do  I  regret  that  I  iiave  to  make  such  exceptions ;  I  would  that  all  who  fol- 
low you  were  what  I  most  solemnly  believe,  and  feel  well  assurred  the  great- 
er part  are,  ungeneraie  persons :  but  I  feel  afraid,  that  tliere  a»e  gracious  souls 
who  have  been  led  away  after  you,  as  Barnabas  was  by  the  dissimulation  of 
false  teachers  m  former  times;  they  are  given  up,  perhaps,  to  be  bufleted  hy 
you,  as  Peter  was  by  Satan,  to  the  end,  that  they  may  learn  similar  lessons  to 
what  he  did.  For  them  I  feel,  sir;  and  had  it  not  been  for  them  I  should  have 
never  addressed  a  line  to  you,  or  thought  more  about  you  than  any  other  un- 
regenerated  man ;  you  are  filling  their  eyes  with  cbaflf,  feeding  them  with 
husks,  and  quenching  their  thirst  with  waters  fouled  to  the  most  abomniable 
stench.  But  I  shall  curb  the  feelings  of  my  soul,  until  I  come  to  address  them 
in  connexion  with  these  letters  to  you ;  to  spread  out  my  feelings  for  them  to 
you,  would  only  be  unintelligible  jargon  in  your  estimation.  Having  now 
given  as  much  of  an  exhibit  of  the  moral  impressions,  which  your  writings 
and  your  teachings,  make  upon  the  community  that  give  heed  thereto,  as  I 
deem  necessary  at  present,  I  shall  recapitulate  that,  together  with  the  previous 
investigation  of  your  character,  in  my  next  and  concluding  letter,  in  whick 
you  will  have  brought  to  a  point  the  estimation  in  which  you  are  held  by 

A  REGULAR  BAPTIST. 


SIR, 

In  recurrence  to  what  I  have  written,  you  will  perceive,  I  mean  to  be 
Understood,  as  saying,  that  you  never  gave  the  Baptist  denomination  any  evi- 
dence whatever,  that  your  becoming  professedly  a  Baptist  yourself  was  the 
"answer  of  a  good  conscience;"  on  the  contrary,  there  is  much  reason  to  be- 
lieve, that  you  left  the  Pedobaptist  ranks,  and  joined  our  denomination,  from 
sinister  and  selfish  motives.  Tlie  whole  series  of  your  disposition  and  conduct 
toward  that  body,  since  you  left  them,  must  forcibly  impress  the  mind  of  every 
close  oDserver  of  human  character,  with  the  conviction,  that  mingled  vanity 
and  rage  drive  you  on  in  your  assault  thereof.  This  conviction  is  deepened, 
when  we  take  into  notice,  (and  what  is  solemnly  true)  that  no  Pedobaptist 
church,  possessing  any  tiling  of  the  power  of  Godliness,  could  ever  derive  any 
edification,  or  satisfaction  under  your  ministry,  though  you  were  to  be  as  la- 
borious as  Luther.  This  is  a  sentiment,  in  which  every  regenerated,  spiritual 
man  under  the  heavens,  I  know,  will  unite  with  me.  Whatever  ability  ihey 
may  concede  to  you,  as  a  teacher  of  ecclesiastical  history,  or  Biblical  critic, 
they  will  all  unite  in  saying,  that  however  much  you  may  amuse  and  instruct 
the  head,  you  have  no  access  to  the  believer's  heart.  You  know  not  any 
thing  of  the  history  of  that,  from  the  dawn  of  regeneration,  to  the  completion 
of  its  salvation  in  the  beatific  vision.  Think,  sir,  on  that  1  ten  thousand  thou- 
sand persons  of  diifercat  denomiQations  of  christians,  and  many  of  them  fa 


79 

every  respect  your  superiors  in  natural  gifts,  ■wouW,  if  they  knew  yon,  declare 
simultaneoiHly,  that  you  know  nothing  about  the  "Hea  ealy  Gift."  Yc--^ 
the  best  spirits  in  even  the  denomination  to  -which  you  now  belon*,  consider 
you  still  dead  in  trespasses  and  sins,  yea,  they  know  it.  As  a  man  of  some 
sense,  such  a  circumstance,  if  true,  must  have  a  solemn  impression  upon  your 
mind,  however  much  you  may  appear  to  hector  above  all  human  opinions. 
The  second  particular  to  which  we  recur  is,  the  subject  of  your  public  dispu- 
tations and  v/i  itingfs :  in  all  of  which,  every  intelligent  man,  and  humble  dis- 
ciple of  the  meek  and  lowly  .Jesus,  will  perceive  that  you  sacrifice  to  the  idoJ 
self;  and  all  the  character  that  we  challeajed,  as  witnessess  to  your  unrejene- 
racy,  will  unite  in  declaring,  that  your  professed  zeal  for  one  denomination  is 
without  knowledge,  and  your  hostility  to  the  other  but  beating  the  air;  that 
both  combined,  demonstrate  that  you  are  radically  ignorant  of  what  are  the 
essential  constituents  of  every  Christina  church.  Were  you  not  ignorant  of 
these  things,  sir,  you  would  never  dare  to  level  such  unqualified  anathemas 
against  the  Pedobaptist  churches,  particularly  agamst  that  denomination  froiri 
which  you  seceded.  The  most  common  placed  mental  integrity,  would  con- 
strain you  to  neutralise  the  obloquy  that  you  have  poured  upon  it.  Yea,  po- 
licy would  have  prompted  you  to  have  done  it — for  we  Baptists,  generally, 
are  not  so  bigotted  and  ignorant,  as  not  to  know,  and  acknowledge  to  the  praise 
of  sovereign  grace,  that  there  are,  among  the  Pedobaptist  churches,  tens  of 
thousands  of  blood-bought,  heaven-born,  heaven-bound  souls:  with  them,  in 
all  the  essential  relationship  of  the  gospel,  we  have  refreshing  fellowship  ; 
with  them,  grow  up  in  essential  faith ;  with  them,  twin  in  love,  until  we  shall 
be  forever  one,  visibly  and  invisibly,  in  the  glorious  head.  Yes,  and  from  the 
ministry  of  many  of  them,  we  Baptists  receive  the  word  of  di^^ne  truth  in 
the  comfort  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  again  and  again.  We  know  and  feel  assured 
that  they  are  pastors  after  God's  otvn  heart,  and  made  overseers  of  the  flock  of 
Christ  by  the  Holy  Ghost.  I  say,  we  Baptists,  in  general,  know  and  feel  assured, 
that  there  are  many,  even  of  the  Pedobaptist  ministers,  that  bear  this  inteiest- 
ing  relationship  to  us:  and  you  may  rest  assured,  that  you  might  as  well  at- 
tempt to  shake  the  foundations  of  the  earth,  as  our  confidence  in  them.  We 
dare  not  call  that  common  or  unclean,  which  the  living  God  has  made  clean, 
"  by  the  washing  of  regeneration,  and  renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost ;"  such 
character,  let  me  tell  you,  sir,  will  always  be  transcendently  fcigher  in  our  es- 
timation, as  regenerated  spiritual  Baptists,  though  they  should  not  observe  one 
ordinance  of  the  New  Testament,  than  that  like  yours,  though  you  had  a 
"  throat  of  brass,  and  adamanftine  lungs,"  worn  out  in  contending  for  our  ordi- 
nances, which  we  know  to  be  truly  gospel  ones.  I  have  mentioned  sober  facts^ 
sir — you  may  dispose  of  them  as  you  ^)lease.  The  third  particular  to  which 
we  refer,  of  what  has  been  addressed  to  you,  is  the  effect  that  your  controver- 
sies have  upon  the  Baptist  denomination  generally;  and  that  is,  they  draw  off 
their  attention  from  fundamental  pvnnciples  of  Godliness,  to  that  which,  ab- 
stractedly considered,  can  never  give  them  estimation  in  the  sight  of  God,  or 
man.  And  little  do  you  know  of  human  nature,  in  its  unregenerate  or  rege- 
nerate state,  or  you  would  never  dare  to  engross  the  attention  of  mankind  so 
much  upon  the  subject  of  an  ordinunce  :  indeed,  were  you  truly  an  evangeli- 
.'•al  minister  of  tlie  gospel,  you  could  not  do  it.  But  as  we  have  said,  your 
ovideat  ignorance  of  every  spirHuai  feature  of  the  church  of  Christ,  must  it 


80 

a  measure,  plead  your  apology  for  spending:  all  your  time  in  making  the  dour 
of  the  home  creak.     Nevertheless'  you  must  admit,  that  it  is  possible  the  noise 
may  be  productive  of  disturbance,  to  even  your  own  family  at  times;  ai^dthat 
they  must,  one  and  all,  feel  mortified  to  perceive  it  is  publicly  noticed,  that 
one  of  their  household  can  de  nothing  else.     If  you,  sir,  should  succeed  in 
proselyting  four-fifths  of  the  Pedobapvtists  denomination  to  the  Baptist  order, 
what  would  be  the  consequence  ?  vrhy,  that  our  denomination  would  become 
incrustated  with  that  much  more  wood,  hay  and  stubble  !  for  I  take  upon  my- 
self to  say,  that  until  God  the  Holy  Ghost  makes  you  a  different,  and  a  new 
creature,  that  no  truly  spiritual  ['edobaptist  would  e^-er  cast  in  hi?  lot  among 
a  people,  of  who^e  character  he  was  to  ,}udge  by  that  of  yours :  no,  not  if  he 
was  never  to  have  connexion  with  the  church  mililant.     So  then,  all  we  can 
calculate  upon  of  proselytism  is,  of  those  from  whom  we  had  far  better  be 
separated.     On  the  other  haad,  many  alas  !  very  many  of  the  Baptists,  it  is  to 
b  feared,  are,  under  your  auspices,  only  solicitous  to  be  known  by  a  name.,  not 
by  a   life.     If  the  spirits  of  departed  saints    can  take  cognizance  of  what 
transpires  here  on  earth,  it  appeal's  almost  impossible,  that  those  devoted,  holy, 
and  laborious  servants  of  the  cross,  who,  in  sweat,  in  tears,  and  groans,  and 
even  blood,  laid  the  foundation,  under  God  the  Holy  Ghost,  of  the  Baptist 
church  in  this  Hemisphere;  I  say,  one  would  suppose  it  almost  impossible  for 
them  to  be  calm  spectators  of  such  desolation,  as  you  are  bringing  in  upon  that 
spiritual  vineyard  for  which  they  were  spent  to  the  last  pulsation  of  their 
lives.  But  an  attempt  to  make  application  of  sentiment  to  you,  sir,  1  am  afraid, 
would  be  as  unavailing  as  to  extract  sunbeams  from  cucumbers.     The  fact  I 
wish  to  fix  upon  your  attention  is,  that  you  are  destroying  much  of  the  power 
and  life  of  religion,  in  the  Baptist  denomination,  by  fixing  their  attention  upon 
and  engrossing  their  minds  with  subordinate  articles  of  their  faith ;  and  that 
this  is  one  of  the  results  of  all  your  debates,  writings  and  orations.    Literally, 
then, you  may  say,  that  your  "zeal  will  eat  them  up." 

The  next  particular  that  we  shall  recapitulate  of  our  previous  remark  is, 
that  your  vanity  is  gratified,  and  your  pecuniary  interest  advanced  by  the 
whole  circle  of  your  doings,  and  that  these  combined,  are  the  grand  control- 
ino-  principles  fiom  which  you  act.  You  pass  for  a  man  of  vast  comprehen- 
sion of  mind,  and  great  attainments  of  knowledge  ;  upon  the  same  ground  that 
what  we  call  a  common  stone,  is  considered  a  wonder  in  some  of  the  southern 
sections  of  the  country,  and  gains  the  appellation  of  a  rock,  or  that  Guilliver 
passed  for  a  giant  among  the  Lilliputians.  But,  sir,  whatever  may  be  the 
amount  of  your  knowledge.,  which  I  venture  to  say  is  nothing  extraordinary, 
your  judgement  is  certainly  miserably  defective,  or  you  would  never  have 
supposed,  that  your  intrinsic  character  could  remain  hid  from  the  eye  of  men 
of  experience,  under  the  flimsy  veil  of  your  sectarian  zeal ;  and  that  they 
would  not  perceive  the  "Csesaraut  Nihil"  was  your  motto.  While  men  of 
sense  will  readily  discern  the  ambition  of  your  projects,  those  of  the  most 
commonplaced  ability,  in  business  calculation,  will  be  enabled  to  furnish 
themselves  with  conclusive  testimony,  that  by  the  publication  of  your  De- 
bates on  baptism,  and  your  mere  sounding  "  Christian  Baptist,"  you  wheedle 
the  Baptists,  and  others  of  the  community,  out  of  as  much  money  as  woald 
cover  the  salary  of  nine  out  of  ten,  at  least,  of  the  Baptist  ministers. 


81 

I  shall  here  enter  into  a  brief  calculation  of  the  pecuniary  advantages  result- 
ing to  you  from  your  publications.  In  the  first  place  then,  we  have  your  first 
Debate  upon  Baptism,  in  a  volume  of  about  200  pages.  Of  this  book,  I  should 
say  that  its  publication  did  not  stand  you  more  than  37  1-2  cents  pei  volume. 
This  I  say  with  the  fullest  conviction  that  it  is  a  fact,  unless  you  choose 
to  pay  extra  prices  for  the  VFork,  which  is  not  likely  to  have  been  the  case.  .A.s 
a  particular  evidence  for  the  correctness  of  the  foregoing  assertion,  I  may  ob- 
serve, that  about  the  same  time  you  published  your  first  Debate  on  Baptism,! 
was  interested  in  the  publication  of  a  book,  altogether  superior  in  materials 
to  yours,  of  360  pages,  and  that  did  but  cost  45  cents  per  volume;  add  to  this, 
my  book  was  published  in  a  part  of  the  country,  where  the  price  of  labour 
and  material  for  making  up  a  book  is  33  1-3  per  cent,  more  than  it  is  in  O'uo, 
where  you  published  your  first  Debate — For  the  said  first  Debate  you 
charged  75  cents.  In  the  publication  of  your  second  Debate,  I  take  upon  me 
to  say  that  youdid^  or  that  you  could  have  published  it  at  an  expense  not  ex- 
ceeding 50  cents  per  volume  :  and  for  that  your  price  to  your  friends  is  f  1  25* 
The  number  of  copies  that  you  had  printed  of  the  fiist  was  2000,  and  you 
sold  the  copy-right  for  300  dollars,  I  will  suppose  that  the  whole  of  both 
debates  will  be  sold  by  the  middle  of  the  year  eighteen  hundred  and  twenty- 
five.     From  this  data  we  shall  have  the  following  exhibit  to  give  of  the  case-^ 

Dr.  Publication  of  Debate  on  Baptism.  Cr. 


By  2000  copies  of  Debate 
with  Mr.  Walker,  at  75  cents 
per  copy,  1500  00 

By  sales  of  6500  copies  of 
Debate  with  M'Calla,  at  1  25 
Iper  copy,  8125  00 

By  sale  of  copy-right  of  De- 
bate with  Mr.  Walker,  300  00 


To  2000  copies  of  Debate 
with  Mr.  Walker,  at  37  1-2 
per  copy.  750  00 

To  6500  copies  of  Debate 
with  M'Calla,  at  50  cents,  per 
copy,  3250  00 

To  incidental  expenses  of 
distributing  said  Debate,  in- 
cluding contingent  losses,  say 
12 1-2  cents  per  volume.  1062  501  9925  00 

To  Balance  4862  50  I 

$,-9925  00  By  Balance  $1862  50 

Now,  sir,  it  appears  that  you  have  made  the  sum  of  5000  dollars,  within  a 
fraction,  clear  profit,  when  your  books  are  disposed  of;  this  we  suppose  will  be 
done  by  the  middle  of  the  ensuing  year,  at  which  time  there  will  have  been 
five  years  elapsed  since  the  debate  with  Mr.  Walker.  This  will  show,  that 
you  have  been  writing  and  preaching  and  debating  upon  the  ordinance  of  Bap- 
tism, (a  scrap  of  our  faith,)  without  any  inducement  whatever,  but  your  seal 
for  the  Baptists  and  regard  for  the  truth,  excepting,  tht  mere  sum  of  1000  dol- 
lars per  annum;  which  in  the  western  country,  where  you  live,  is  equal  to  2000 
dollars  in  Boston,  J^ew  York,  Philadelphia,  or  Baltimore.'  Where  did  this 
money  come  from  ^  did  it  not  come  principally  from  the  Baptists  f  it  did,  uor 
have  they  had  any  better  value  for  it  than  you  suppose  them  to  receive  by  send- 
ing their  dollars  to  convert  the  Laplander  or  the  Hindoos.  So  much,  sir,  by 
way  of  redeeming  our  pledge,  to  prove  that  you  are  not  the  disinterested 
champion  for  the  truth  that  you  profess  to  be — that  your  eye  sometimes  is  di- 
rected to  the  glittering  clifls  of  Potosi.  It  is  perfectly  natural,  sir,  that  yoa 
should  attempt  to  persuade  every  body,  that  you  are  governed  by  no  sordid 
motive?  in  any  thing  that  yoi^  do  :  but  really  sir,  it  is  "passing  strange"  that 

M 


82 

men  should  be  so  credulous  as  to  believe  you,  with  such  facts  stariag  them  in 
the  face :  it  shows  that  they  are  prone  to  "  swallow  without  pause  or  choice, 
the  total  ^rist  unsifted,  husks  and  all,"  so  that  it  is  sweetened  with  a  little 
adulation,  of  their  civic,  their  moral,  their  intellectual  worth.  We  shall  say 
nothin;^  at  present  about  your  "Christian  Baptist,"  as  being  a  source  of  re? 
venue  to  you ;  if  you  have,  however,  even  a  thousand  subscribers,  for  that,  I 
will  undertake  to  prove,  that  you  clear  300  dollars  by  it  per  annum;  and  even 
that  sum  is  more  than  nine  out  of  ten  of  the  Baptist  ministers  of  these  western 
states  get  per  annum;  perhaps  I  mi°;ht  be  safe  in  saying,  that  it  is  twice  as  much 
as  they  receive.  What!  envy  them  a  paltry  $150,  when  you  get  10  to  1300 
dollars — what,  deem  them  overpaid  by  150  dollars,  who  preach  all  the  glori- 
ous truths  of  the  gospel,  and  who  labour  incessantly  to  inspire  spiritual  life 
and  universal  holiness  into  the  church,  when  you  receive  10  to  $1300  for 
mere  disquisition  upon  an  outward  ordinance  !  or  things  allied  to  it !  Nor  does 
it  escape  observation,  that  you  are  giving  evidence,  that  you  consider  the  pre- 
sent slage  of  your  operations  but  the  mere  seed  time  in  pecuniary  results,  that 
you  calculate,  e'er  long,  on  throwing  a  considerable  part  of  the  religious 
community  around  you  into  such  a  state  of  anarchy,  as  to  make  any  kind  of 
order  tliatyou  may  dictate  desirable.  In  such  an  event  you  would  know,  no 
doubt,  how  to  fix  your  price  for  your  interference.  You  have,  Ho  doubt,  a  full 
account  of  aW.  costs.  Here  let  me  say,  sir,  that  while  from  my  soul  I  abhor  all 
extravagance,  luxury,  and  covetousness  in  the  ministers  of  the  gospel,  as 
much  as  you,  or  any  other  man  can,  on  the  other  hand  I  must  say,  that  the 
manner  in  which  you  declaim  against  all  pecuniary  compensation  to  the  min- 
isters of  the  gospel,  proves,  in  itself,  without  refering  to  many  other  evidences 
that  jexist,  that  you  are.absolutely  ignorant  of  the  essential  relationship  subsist- 
ing between  the  pastor  alter  God's  own  heart,  and  the  flock  of  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  and  as  a  man,  destitute  of  the  spirit  of  the  living  God,  who  alone  can 
give  adaptation  to  the  olfice  of  the  ministry;  or  indeed,  make  one  jot  or  tittle  of 
efficient  application  of  the  salvation  of  Christ  to  the  human  soul;  as  such  a 
man  it  would  be  a  futile  attempt  on  my  part,  to  furnish  your  mind  with  any 
just  perceptions  on  that  subject.  Till  God  the  Holy  Ghost  does  it,  the  subject 
in  any  and  every  form  of  language,  would  appear  but  foolishness  in  your  eyes. 
All  this  remark,  a  spiritual  people  and  a  spiritual  minister,  know  to  be  true,  to 
whatever  denomination  they  may  belong ;  and  you  may  as  soon  expect  to  al- 
lure the  living  to  the  embrace  of  a  putrescent  carcass,  as  to  draw  the  "  Israe- 
lite iudeed,"  the  truly  lively  and  devotional  believer,  from  the  pastor  of  his 
choice,  to  such  a  character  as  you  are  among  ministers. 

The  nest  thing  we  shall  refer  to  of  our  remarks,  is,  the  effort  you  are  making 
to  render  obsolete  all  forms  of  faith  and  church  order.  In  this  attempt  of 
yours  we  must  positively  consider  you  a  fool,  or  designing  to  disorganize,  and 
overthrow  all  social  compact  in  the  religious  community.  We  have  already 
expressed  our  conviction,  that  it  results  from  your  design  to  produce  anarchy ; 
that  in  the  end  you  may  dictate  what  shall  be  faith  and  order,  and  yonr  own 
terms  for  which  that  shall  be  done.  We  may  pause,  to  decide  whether  there 
should  be  pity  or  indignation  felt  toward  you.  Certainly  you  ought  not  to 
calculate  upon  offering  such  an  insult  to  the  understanding  of  sensible  men  in 
the  Baptist  deuomiiiatiori,  as  is  found  in  your  proposition  to  lay  aside  their 


S3 

faith  and  order,  without  expecting  their  contempt  or  their  frowns;  th.s  cir- 
<7Uinstance  itself  demonstrates  to  every  reflecting  mind,  that  you  are  no  Bap- 
tist ;  only  after  the  willof  the  flesh!  no,  nor  ever  have  been. 

The  next  feature  of  the  subject  that  we  have  brought  to  your  view,  which 
we  shall  retouch  is,  the  general  character  of  your  adherents,  or  disciples' 
(teachers  and  pupils  ;)  in  view  of  which,  are  you  not  rather  abashed  at  the 
motley  group !  teachers  advancing  sentiments  and  doctrines  oae  day,  that  they 
gainsay  another— acknowledging  that  tlicy  h;id  been  for  years  instructing 
others  in  the  gospel  of  Christ,  while  disbelieving  the  very  fundameatals  of  it 
themselves ;  and  even  in  the  concession  of  their  ignorance  themselves  m  the 
past,  giving  no  jot  or  tittle  of  evidence,  ihat  they  eveu  now  beliere  in,  or  feel 
the  truths  they  have  been  ignorant  of.  Teachers,  of  wnose  views  no  definite 
opinion  can  be  formed,  by  learned  or  unlearned;  whose  heareri  say,  alternate- 
ly, that  they  are  Antmomians,  Sandemaaians,  or  Socinians,  and  in  the  aggre- 
gate, that  they  cannot  tell  what  they  say,  or  know  whereof  they  atfirm  :  whde 
their  immediate  adherents  say,  away  with  all  forms  of  faith  and  order ;  we 
be  freemen;  we  will  read  and  think,  and  judge  for  ourselves — our  Elder 
thinks  one  thing,  we  another — ^we  had  such  and  such  views  yesterday — to- 
day we  have  different  ones — and  to  morrow  we  calculate  upon  having  opin- 
ions at  variance  with  all  we  have  heretofore  entertained :  this  they  call  the 
liberty  of  the  gospel — a  mark  of  mental  independence — the  evidence  of  their 
growing  in  the  knowledge  of  Scriptures.  They  profess  to  feel  great  satisfac- 
tion ia  reading  the  Bible,  to  have  much  peace  and  joy  in  their  attainments  of 
knowledge.  Now,  the  truth  is,  that  in  every  stage  of  their  experience,  the 
pride  of  their  minds,  the  vanity  of  their  hearts,  being  gratified,  is  the  sole 
cause  "^f  their  satisfaction.  Indeed,  the  whole  of  your  fraternity,  from  first  to 
last,  including  yourself,  sir,  are  flatterers  of  each  other — they  say,  that  there 
is  no  teacher  like  you — you  respond,  there  is  no  people  so  well  instructed  and 
intelligent  as  them.  You  recollect,  I  suppose,  who  "  obtained  a  kingdom  by 
flatteries."  Bear  in  mind  also,  that  it  is  written  upon  good  authority,  "he 
who  speaketh  flattery  to  his  friends,  even  the  eyes  of  his  children  shall  fail"-— 
and  that  the  characteristic  of  an  evangelical  minister  is,  "  not  to  use  flattering 
■words;"  for,  that  is  to  be  considered,  and  set  down,  as  "a  cloak  of  covetous- 
ness"  after  fame  or  emolument,  or  both.  Now,  it  is  not  my  wish  to  be  under- 
stood as  disapproving  of  all  possible  devotedness  to  the  perusal  of  the  Scrip- 
tures: on  the  contrary,  I  think  your  fraternity  worthy  of  imitation  in  this  par- 
ticular ;  but  I  wish  to  be  understood,  as  saying,  that,  generally.,  they  read  for 
no  other  object,  and  to  no  other  end,  than  to  grow  wise  in  their  own  conceit: 
and  you  know  it  is  written, "  that  there  is  more  hope  of  fools,"  than  such  char- 
acters. You  will,  I  persuade  myself,  looK  over  the  address  to  the  Baptist 
churches  appended  to  these  letters ;  in  that  you  will  see  some  of  the  contrast 
which  I  conceive  the  real  and  the  spiritual  believer  bears  to  the  character  of 
your  adherents.  For  the  present  I  relieve  your  attention,  with  simply  observ- 
ing, that  it  was  not  for  your  sfike  that  I  have  made  a  recapitulation  of  my 
former  remarks  io  this  last  letter,  but  for  the  sake  of  those  whose  minds  may 
not  be  so  well  disciplined  in  recollection,  as  yours. 

A  REGULAR  BAPTIST. 

N.  B.  I  shall  trouble  you  with  a  few  lines  more,  rather  than  swell  Ihe  last 
fetter  to  greater  dimension?. 


84 

Sir, 

In  view  of  what  I  have  exhibited  of  your  character,  from  the  fairest 
ground  of  conjecture,  and  from  the  face  of  your  doings,  since  you  have  been  a 
professed  Baptist,  together  with  the  notification,  that  the  same  estimate  is  form- 
ed of  you  by  far  the  greatest,  if  not  all  the  really  spiritual  and  intelligent  part 
of  the  Baptists  that  have  knowledge  of  you ;  from  these  circumstances  com- 
bined, I  say,  one  might  hope,  that  you  will  fall  a  little  from  the  loftiness  of 
your  self-complacency.  Perhaps,  in  the  reminiscences  which  the  considera- 
tion of  the  subject  v.5^11  produce,  the  language  of  the  prophet  may  come  up  to 
your  :iiind,  where  he  says,  "  Thy  terribleness  hath  deceived  thee,  and  the  pride 
of  thy  heart,  O  thou  that  dwellest  in  the  clefts  of  the  rock,  that  boldest  the 
hei^bt  of  the  hill ;  though  thou  shouldest  make  thy  nest  as  high  as  the  eagle, 
1  will  bring  thee  down  from  thence,  saith  the  Lord."  Confident  that  you 
hare  an  und  ue  and  deleterious  influence  in  the  Baptist  church,  I  would  wish  to 
see  it  destroyed.  To  this  end  I  am  now  writing  to  you ;  believing  that  noth- 
ing is  necessary  to  the  accomplishment  of  the  object,  but  to  rouse  the  minds  of 
the  Baptists  around  you  to  an  investigation  of  your  character,  similar  to  that 
which  I  have  given  an  outline  of — "  the  death  of  reflection,  is  the  birth  of  all 
wo;  f  ' '■  vuen  churches  sleep,  the  enemy  will  sow  tares.  Hence,  good  will 
to  the  Bapiisl  cause,  and  not  ill  will  to  you  sir,  moves  me  to  address  these  re- 
ma;  ht  to  you  for  the  public  eye.  I  am  fully  persuaded,  that  you  are  every 
day  sinking  the  character  of  the  Baptist  church  in  these  western  states,  both 
in  ibe  estimation  of  the  truly  religious  and  irreligious.  All  you  do,  all  you 
say,  together  with  your  satellites,  is  fathered  upon  the  regular  Baptist  church 
— doctrines  hov,  ever  horrible — practices  however  corrupt — observances  how- 
ever fool'sh — incousisiencies  however  numerous — and  speculations  however 
atsu.  D,  incongruous  and  versatile,  that  prevail  in  your  fraternity,  are  all  set 
down  to  the  account  of  the  Baptist  denomination.  Does  not  the  blush  crim- 
son p.ad  burn  your  cheek,  sir,  when  you  see  the  mental  dishonesty,  the  moral 
tUiplUide  that  is  implied  in  the  fact  of  your  having  threw  around  you  the 
.  haLiiiments  of  a  Baptist  profession,  to  the  end,  that  you  might,  unsuspectedly, 
propagate  sentiments  and  doctrines  directly  at  variance  with,  and  disgrace- 
ful to  the  Baptist  church  !  but  "  vengeance  belongs  unto  God."  The  Lord  re- 
buke thee  in  the  chambers  of  your  own  conscience  ;  then  you  will  be  the  first 
to  acknowledge,  that  of  such  character,  and  such  conduct  it  may  be  truly  said, 
"  O  full  of  all  subtlety,  thou  child  of  the  devil,  will  thou  not  cease  to  pervert 
the  right  ways  of  the  Lord."'  I  assure  you,  that  I  entertain  no  idea  of  moral 
superiority  over  and  above  you  by. nature;  that  in  an  unregenerated  state,  1 
know  myself  capable  of  practising  all  the  trick  and  manoeuvre  that  you  have 
been  practising,  to  get  a  name  in  the  world ;  that  the  pride  of  the  human 
heart  iu  its  native  language,  is  in  accordance  with  Satan's,  when  he  says,  "better 
to  reign  in  hell  than  serve  in  heaven."  The  principle  that  appears  chiefly  to 
govern  you,  is,  what  the  world,  in  its  severest  judgment,  calls  "the  infirmity 
of  a  noble  spirit ;"  but  then,  you  must  not  be  surprised  if  others  should  feel 
somewhat  indignant  while  suffering  under  the  devastating  freaks  of  that 
"  nobis  spirit ;"  or,  if  they  raise  a  warning  voice  to  their  neighbours  of  its 
presence,  particularly  when  it  comes  dressed  in  long  and  flowing  Phylacteries 
with  disinterested  zeal — universal  reformation — absolute  equality — and  con- 
summate perfection  written  thereon. 


-;•  85 

You  are,  sir,  a  citizen  of  America;  and  as  such,  free  to  worship  God  alter  the 
dictates  of  your  own  conscience,  to  profess  to  believe,  or  not  believe,  in  any, 
or  every  part  of  the  Bible — to  advance  whatever  doctrines  you  please  in  the 
community,  unless  in  hostility  to  the  known  laws  of  the  land.  But  you  are  not 
at  liberty^  sir,  to  profess  a  connexion  with  any  religious  denomination  when  you 
are  advancing  doctrines  diamelrically  opposite  to  theirs.  What  head  of  a  reli- 
gious family  is  there  in  the  community,  but  would  feel  indignant,  were  you 
to  enter  his  house,  and  having  gained  some  general  ideas  of  his  family  affairs, 
go  forth  into  the  world,  and  make  use  of  that  information  as  an  evidence,  that 
you  were  his  son,  or  otherwise  nearly  related  to  him !  and  how  would  his  in- 
dignation be  increased  if  he  found,  that  you  were  passmg  yourself  off  as  his 
son,  while  living  in  the  practice  of  theatrical  buffooneries,  or  any  other  land 
of  habits  at  variance  with  that  respectability  of  himself  and  family,  which  you 
were  r^fering  to,  and  making  use  of,  to  command  attention  from,  and  influence 
with  others !  certainly,  every  man  would  conceive  you  deserving  of  rebuke 
for  taking  such  unjustifiable  liberties  with  his  good  name :  indeed,  it  would  be 
fairly  considered  as  the  worst  species  of  robbery — and  can  similar  conduct  be 
more  authorised  because  it  is  practised  on  a  large  body'*  certainly  not — and 
here  is  the  particular  point  upon  which  I  found  all  my  reason  for  considering 
you  deserving  of  public  exposure.  Come  forth,  sir,  to  our  view,  what  you 
really  are!  but  not  as  a  genuine  Baptist — for  you  now  are,  and  have  been,  try- 
ing to  overthrow  the  faith,  the  order  and  the  ministry  of  that  for  years  past . 
Come  out  then,  sir,  in  your  real  character,  and  with  your  real  sentiments — 
tell  us  candidly,  that  you  do  not  believe  in  what  we  emphatically  denominate 
regeneration,  or  in  the  Spirit's  special  influences  at  all — tell  us,  that  you  consi- 
der a  man  eligible  to  baptism  without  one  word  of  inquiry  as  to  what  God  has 
done  for  his  soul,  and  upon  his  bare  declaration  that  he  believes — tell  us,  that 
you  do  not  believe  the  moral  law  of  God  to  be  a  rule  of  life  for  the  believer  ! — 
tell  us,  that  you  do  not  believe  that  preaching  the  gospel  since  the  completion 
of  New  Testament  revelation  has  the  authority  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ — tell 
us,  that  you  have  no  fellowship  with  any  forms  of  faith  or  church  discipline — 
tell  us,  that  you  have  no  confidence  in  the  exercise  of  prayer,  as  a  means  of 
grace,  or,  estimation  of  it,  as  a  believer's  privilege :  and  that,  in  proof  thereof 
you  have  been  entirely  neglectful  of  it  even  in  your  own  family  for  years  past — 
tell  us  these  things  openly,  declare  them  explicitly,  and  merit  the  name  of  a  can- 
did man.  You  are  at  full  liberty,  and  under  positive  obligation  to  do  so.  You 
will  then  give  the  public  a  reasonable  pledge,  that  you  are  governed  by  no 
sinister,  nor  improper  motives.  The  Baptist  denomination  will  then  be  an- 
swerable for  the  palpable  inconsistency  of  holding  connexion  with  a  man  whose 
sentiments  are  in  direct  opposition  to  that  faith  and  order  which  they  hold  up 
to  public  view,  as  the  foundation  of  their  spiritual  hope,  and  bond  of  their  visi- 
ble existence.  Had  you  done  this,  sir,  at  a  proper  time,  no  one  would  have 
had  any  cause  to  reproach  you;  and  multitudes  who  now  shun  you  as  a  rfe- 
ceiver,  would  have  been  pleased  to  have  met  with  you  upon  principles  of  or- 
dinary intercourse,  and  interchanged  the  feelings  of  social  amity — among 
whom,  sir,  I  assure  you  with  the  utmost  sincerity  and  truth,  I  may  mention 
myself;  believing  as  1  do,  that  as  a  natural  man, you  have  a  good  share  of  those 
attractions  of  mind  and  manners,  which  beguile  the  tedium  of  life,  and  smooth 
its  rugged  path.  Before  I  close,  indulge  me  with  permission  to  repeat,  tliat  my 


86 

own  judgment  dictates  solely  and  wholly,  in  this  address  to  you:  that  if  my 
wretched  heart  does  not  deceive  roe,  I  have  had  the  best  of  motives  in  endea- 
rouring  to  poui-tray  your  character,  as  being  opposite  to  what  you  profess  it 
to  be,  under  the  name  of  a  BaptistI  Upon  a  review  of  what  I  have  written,  I 
do  not  think  any  injustice  is  done  to  the  subject.  I  am  sensible,  however,  that 
infirmities  will  ever  characterize  me  in  all  I  attempt  to  do  while  in  the  flesh ; 
and  that  iniquity  belongs  to  my  most  holy  things.  I  have  endeavoured  to  write 
with  death,  eternity  and  judgment  before  my  eyes;  and  to  keep  up  an  earriest 
desire  and  pi-ayer  in  my  soul,  that  I  might  not  unnecessarily  inflict  any  wound 
upon  your  feelings,  or  that  of  any  other  person.  You  are,  sir,  and  all  whom  I 
haA'e  adverted  to  as  like  you,  in  these  letters,  my  fellow  man,  fellow  immortal, 
and  fellow  sinner.  If  you  and  they  are  under  the  fatal  mistake,  and  in  the  aw- 
ful darkness  that  I  believe  you  to  be,  the  foregoing  address  may  be  made  use 
of,  by  that  God  who  delights  to  make  use  of  the  weakest  things  to  accomplish 
the  greatest  qi  purposes,  to  your  essential  benefit;'  as  I  hope  he  will  to  the  be- 
nefit of  liis  people  in  the  Baptist  church,  where  your  influence  is  felt.  At  all 
events,  I  feel  satisfied,  that  my  soul  is  big  with  inexpressible  desire,  that  you 
and  all  who  drink  into  your  particular  views  in  religion,  may  realize  the  over- 
shadowing and  indwelling  power  of  the  Holy  Ghest,  who  only  can  make  an 
effectual  and  saving  application  of  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  to  your 
precious  souls.  I  now  take  my  leave  of  you,  sir,  after  informing  you  that  my 
real  name  I  wish  to  conceal  in  reference  to  this  publication;  not  that  I  want  to 
avoid  any  responsibility  connected  with  what  I  have  written.  No;  my  name 
is  at  your  serviee  through  the  medium,  of  the  printer  hereof,  when  you  may 
think  proper  to  demand  it  in  propria  persona;  provided,  you  give  a  fair  rea- 
son for  having  it  communicated  to  you.  I  have  not  written  to  you  without 
counting  the  costs.  It  has  been  severely  painful  to  my  feelings  while  speak- 
ing in  any  respect  harshly  to  you — but,  sir,  you  have  struck,  and  are  striking 
at  my  faith.  "  'Tis  my  glory,  the  lifter  up  of  my  head"  from  every  billow  of 
aiiliction — yea,  more,  'tis  the  glory  of  the  Baptist  denomination.  And  well  it 
may  be;  for  without  any  qualification,  it  makes  Jesus  Christ  all  and  in  all  of 
the  sinner's  hope;  it  gives  to  the  adorable  three  in  one,  their  respective,  proper 
and  full  share  in  the  salvation  of  the  elect.  Moreover,  many  of  that  denomi- 
nation, together  with  myself,  not  only  charge  you  with  attacking  our  faith, 
(this  had  it  been  done  openly  we  could,  we  must  have  borne)  but  it  has  been 
done  insidiously  by  you.  "  There's  the  rub:"  this  consideration,  perhaps,  has 
roused  more  resentment  in  writing  to  you  than  I  ought  to  have  felt.  But  in 
perfect  coolness  I  now  tell  you  in  my  concluding  sentence,  that  my  pen  is  but 
the  echo  of  ten  thousand  voices  when  I  say,  that  you  ought  to  be  divested  of  the 
name  of  "•  the  Christian  Baptist,"  and  known  by  that  of  "  the  Theological  ad- 
venturer.'''' . 

A  REGULAR  BAPTIST. 


9,7 


To  the  regular  Baptist  Churches,  scattered  throughout  the. 
Western  tSection  of  the  United  IStates. 

BRETHREN,  BELOVF.D  OF  THE  LoRD, 

As  many  of  you  as  read  the  foregoing;  letters  to  Alexander  Campbell 
will,  I  hope,  be  disposed,  in  justice  to  him  and  to  yourselves,  to  give  every 
possible  investigation  to  the  subject  of  which  it  treats;  and  like  the  noble  Be- 
rscans,  "search  if  these  things  be  so."  Yes,  brethren,  search,  search  his  whole 
life  as  far  as  possible;  it  is  high  time  he  should  be  fully  known  to  you,  for  he 
is  either  your  very  zealous,  though  ignorant  advocate,  and  therefore  wants 
your  Aquila's  and  Priscilla's  to  direct  his  zeal  according  to  knowledge,  or  he 
is  an  enemy  in  disguise  and  ought  to  be  exposed.  You  cannot,  brethren,  but, 
perceive,  upon  a  most  common-place  notice  of  this  man's  life,  since  he  has  beeiii' 
among  you,  that  you,  as  a  denomination,  have  been  made  the  citadel  of  hi? 
safety,  while  throwing  the  shafts  of  his  hostility  at  other  denominations;  par- 
ticularly at  that  one  with  which  you  most  assuredly  stand  in  the  greatfest  de- 
gree of  fellowship. 

The  question  then  is,  whether  Mr.  C.  represents  your  feelings  towards  the 
Presbyterian  and  other  Paedo-bnptist  churches,  ag-ainst  whom  he  "breathes 
out  threateuings  and  slaughter?"  if  he  does,  let  us  know  what  cause  they  have 
given  for  this  interminable  rage.  But  I  need  not  put  this  sort  of  question  to 
you,  being  fully  persuaded  that  your  greatest  partiality  is  towards  that  very 
church  which  Mr.  C  appears  to  hate  with  the  most  deadly  hatred.  It  is  but 
reasonable  that  it  should  be  so;  for  with  all  their  spots  and  imperfections^  they 
approach  the  nearest  to  what  is  your  glory  as  a  denomination,  I  mean  experi- 
mental religion  and  solid  piety.  Perhaps,  brethren,  you  are  indulging  your- 
selves in  a  little  merriment,,  by  allowing  Vlr.  C.  to  go  out  in  your  name  to  chal- 
lenge, and  even  attack,  with  his  single  arm,  the  formidable  phalanx  of  the 
Paedo-baptist  churches,  indeed,  brethren,  apart  from  other  considerations,  and 
it  is  really  amusing.  You  have  an  exhibit  of  the  freaks  which  human  vanity 
can  play,  and  how  it  can  make  a  man  fanc}'  himself  a  Plercules,  and  push  him 
forth  m  quesL  of  adventures  for  his  prowess,  when  indeed,  he  is  but  a  pigmy; 
and  that  he  can  draw  out  from  the  deep  leviathan,  with  a  hook  that  his  own 
fingers  have  fashioned.  But,  brethren,  you  will,  I  hope,  seriously  redectthat 
the  animosity  which  Mr.  C.  exhibits  towards  the  Pedo-baptists,  will  be  re- 
garded,  at  least  very  generally,  as  your  feelings  towards  them,  so  long  as  he 
shall  have  a  name  and  place  among  you.  Think,  I  say,  seriously,  of  that  breth- 
ren, and  judge  you,  whether  it  is  not  taking  away  from  you  the  ornament  of  a 
meek  and  quiet  spirit !  if  it  is  not  getting  you  the  character  of  a  tribe  of  Ish- 
maelites,  whose  hand  is  against  every  one,  rather  than  the  name  of  a  church 
of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  walking  i'n  the  fear  of  God,  the  comfort  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,,  and  living  peaceably  with  all  men.  Then,  the  next  question  is,  will 
you  indulge  your  humour,  or  gratify  the  vanity  of  Mr.  C.  at  the  expense  of 
that  good  name  of  yours,  which  has  been  like  ointment  poured  forth.-'  besides, 
brethren,  you  may  rely  upon  it,  that  no  man,  mucii  less  any  body  of  men,  ever 
familiarized  themselves  even  to  the  fighting  of  dung-hill  cocks,  or  little  surly 
rnrs,  but  what  found  themselves  gradually  warmed  up  to  fighting  temperil  • 


88 

ineut!  hence,  saith  the  wise  man,  in  the  maturity  of  wisdom,  "leave  off  con- 
tention before  it  be  meddled  with ;  cast  out  the  scorner  and  contention  will 
cease."  Now,  brethren,  the  proposition  I  have  just  advanced,  is  known  to  be 
true  to  every  one  of  any  observation  on  human  life.  It  was  by  the  exhibition 
of  different  kinds  of  fighting  among  beasts  and  men,  that  ambitious  demagogues 
and  mily  politicians  of  old,  were  wont  to  brutalize  the  feelings,  and  render  fe- 
rocious the  dispositioH  of  the  common  people,  to  the  end,  that  they  might  be 
prepared  for  all  manner  of  violence  and  rapacity  that  their  headers  might  see 
fit  to  direct  them  to.  You  will  understand,  that  these  demagogues  pretended 
to  have  only  the  pleasure  and  amusement  of  their  fellow-citizens  in  view,  in  the 
exhibitions  alluded  to.  Now,  the  same  or  similar  causes  will  always  produce 
similar  effects.  It  makes  no  difference  where  the  contention  goes  on;  in  church 
or  state,  in  city  or  family:  when  men  see  contention  and  fighting,  as  we  saidf 
they  begin  to  wax  warm  on  different  sides  of  the  fray — the  brea*h  quickens, 
the  pulse  doubles,  the  eye  rolls,  the  hands  clinch,  the  fist  smites,  almost  un- 
consciously to  themselves.  Ah,  and  this  Mr.  C.  knows  right  well  too;  and  hav- 
ing had  you  for  two  or  three  years  spectators  of  his  own  personal  combats,  or  fa- 
miliarized your  minds  to  a  mew  of  his  own  fightings,  you  will  find,  perhaps 
too  late,  that  the  object  contemplated  by  Mr.  C.  was  to  prepare  you  for  dissen- 
tions  and  fightings  among  yourselves;  to  the  end,  that  he  might  share  the  spoils 
by  making  you  a  divided  people.  Already,  brethren,  it  is  to  be  feared,  that 
many  of  you  are  much  more  ambitious  to  make  it  known,  that  you  have  a  va- 
riety of  Greek  prepositions,  Latin  verbs,  and  Hebrew  roots  in  your  heads,  than 
the  incorruptible  seed  of  divire  truth  abiding  in  your  hearts.  Already  many 
of  you  are  disposed  to  contend  more  for  the  faith  once  delivered  to  the  saints, 
in  noisy,  empty  words,  than  by  a  well  ordered  life,  and  a  holy  conversation.  Is 
this  not  the  case?  or  if  you  refuse  to  answer  that  question,  at  least,  brethren, 
solemnly  and  prayerfully  inquire  of  your  souls,  individually  before  God,  soul  I 
soul !  of  what  profit  to  thee  is  the  spleen  and  declamation  of  Alexander  Camp- 
bell or  any  other  man  against  any  body  of  people?  does,  or  can  it  ever  add  one 
jot  or  tittle  to  the  spiritual  prosperity  of  the  church  to  which  I  belong?  If  it  is 
evident  that  no  benefit  results  from  attention  thereto,  it  is  certainly  both  fool- 
ish and  wicked  to  have  the  fleeting  moments  of  our  fleeting  lives,  occupied 
therewith:  then,  brethren,  if  you  do  not  wish  to  have  Mr.  C's  animosity  to- 
wards other  denominations  chargeable  to  you,  you  must  learn  him  to  be  quiet. 

You  have,  brethren,  in  your  church,  a  justly  regulated  observance  of  the 
only  two  ordinances  of  divine  appointment  in  the  New  Testament  dispensa- 
tion, binding  in  common  upon  all  the  disciples  of  the  Lord  J  esus  Christ;  they 
'are  Baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper.  Before  any  person  is  entitled  to  the  first, 
you  professedly  believe,  that  "  he  must  be  born  again:" — born  of  the  adorable 
Spirit  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ;  or  to  use  the  apostle's  strong  and  comprehen- 
sive language  upon  the  subject,  he  must  experience  "  the  washing  of  regene- 
ration, and  renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost;"  that  to  baptize  any  one  who  does  not 
give  evidence  of  this  change  of  heart,  (not  a  change  merely  in  the  head,)  is  aw- 
ful presumption,  abominable  blasphemy,  and  a  deed  of  darkness,  which  is  em- 
phatically to  mimick  the  kingdom  of  the  Lord  J  esus  Christ.  Now,  brethren, 
the  next  inquiry  is,  whether  or  no  Mr.  C.  has  ever  given  evidence  that  he  is  a 
regenerated  man?  if  he  has  not,  then  you  must  necessarily  consider  him  an 


89 

''  evil  tree,"  and  you  know,  upon  good  authority,  that  "  an  evil  tree  cannot  bring, 
forth  ^ood  fruit,"  neither  towards  God  nor  man,  spiritually.  You  may  as  soon, 
and  as  reasonably,  expect  to  gather  grapes  from  thorns,  or  figs  from  thistles,as 
any  real  and  spiritual  benefit  from  the  services  of  an  unregenerate  man;  be 
they  ever  so  numerous  and  extensive,  they  will  all  amount  to  nothing  more,  as 
res;">ects  the  Church  of  Christ,  than  the  many  things  which  Herod  did.  Now, 
I  say  solemnly,  and  in  the  fear  of  God,  that  there  is  great,  if  not  unqualified 
reason  to  conclude,  that  .VTr.  C.  is  an  unregenerated  man.  The  reasons  for  my 
believing  so  you  will  have  seen  in  the  preceding  letters  addressed  to  him.  One 
solitary  circumstance,  however,  of  the  many  which  I  have  noticed  as  evidence 
of  hiS  unregeneracy,  is  all  that  1  deem  necessary  to  settle  the  point  with  you  ; 
that  is,  there  is  every  reason  to  conclude  from  his  writings  and  orations,  toge- 
ther with  the  general  sentiments  of  his  adherents,  that  he  does  not  so  much  as 
believe  in  the  Spirit'' s  immediate  influences  upon  the  soul,  in  ike  first,  or  ani/ fol- 
lowing stage  of  thej)eliever''s  life. 

I  know,  brethren,  that  it  is  said,  with  some  degree  of  plausibility,  that  there 
is  reason  for  suspending  judgment  on  Mr.  C.  in  that  respect,  because  many 
good  meaning  people  are  held  in  doubt;  alternately  believing  that  he  does,  or  that 
he  does  not  acknowledge  a  belief  in  the  doctrines  alluded  to.  O  !  heavens!  and 
has  it  come  to  this  pass,  that  Baptist  churches  will  suffer  themselves  to  wait 
six  or  eight  years  to  learn  whether  or  not  one  of  their  professed  ministers  be- 
lieves in  the  Holy  Ghost,  as  the  mighty,  special  and  direct  agency  of  all  efli- 
cient  conversion  in  the  human  soul !  What  next  ?  wait  six  or  eight  years  to 
ascertain  whether  or  not  some  other  of  their  ministers  believes  in  the  Divinity 
or  Godhead  of  Jesus  Christ !  What  next?  wait  six  or  eight  years  to  inquire 
whether  or  not  some  other  of  their  ministers  acknowledge  the  being  of  a  God ! 
What  next .''  wait  to  the  end  of  our  lives  to  know  whether  or  not  we  are  to 
have  any  ;jar/  of  our  faith  admitted  as  the  truth;  and  quietly  sink  into  hell 
while  in  the  attitude  of  humbly  waiting  upon  iMr.  C.  and  other  innovators,  for 
something  which  they  mai/  call  believing.  It  ought  not  to  be  a  matter  of  ques- 
tion for  one  moment,  with  any  regular  Baptist,  or  any  real  and  spiritual  chris- 
tian, as  to  who  and  what  that  man  is,  who,  as  a  minister  of  the  gospel,  even 
neglects  to  preach  the  doctrine  of  the  new  birth  by  the  Holy  Ghost  sent  down 
from  heaven.  No,  nor  will  it  be  a  matter  of  question  with  any  intelligent 
spiritual  christian,  of  whatever  denomination  they  may  be  !  they  will  one  and 
all  ])ronounce  him  to  be  an  unregenerated  man,  and  an  impostor.  We  repeat, 
that  there  is  no  necessity  of  his  saying  in  so  many  words,  he  don't  believe  in  it; 
if  he  does  not  preach  it,  he  virtually  denies  it,  and  ought  to  be  estimated  ac- 
cordingly! The  devil,  brethren,  is  never  so  dangerous,  as  when  he  assumes  the 
form  of  an  angel  of  light,  and  comes  into  the  churclies  with  great  profession  of 
zeal  for  ordinances,  and  some  part  of  the  truth:  but  not  the  whole  truth.  You 
will  recollect,  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  has  admonished  us,  that  not  every  one 
that  even  says  Lord!  Lord !  unto  him,  shall  enter  the  kingdom  of  heaven  :  as 
if  he  had  said,  you  already  know,  that  he  who  denies  me  to  be  the  Lord  Jeho- 
vah, has  no  saving;  knowledge  of  me,     I  now  tell  you  what  shall  surprise  you 


•N 


9t) 


more,  that  there  shall  be  many  that  shall  give  me  every  name  of  honour  and 
distinction,  as  (rod  over  all,  who,  nevertheless  shall  not  enter  into  heaven. 
Brethren,  if  the  Devil  was  to  be  permitted  his  choice  of  devices  against  the 
Baptist  churches,  I  should  expect  it  to  be  exhibited  in  a  flaming  zeal  for  their 
ordinances^  and  earnest  vociferation  of  the  name  of  Christ,  as  Lord,  Lord.  He 
knows  that  they  love  the  ordinances,  and  are  delighted  to  hear  the  name  of 
Jesus  exalted.  Under  these  circumstances,  suppose  hira  to  select  an  instru- 
jnent  for  the  infliction  of  some  disastrous  injury  upon  you  :  it  would  be  of  an 
individual  of  the  best  outside  appearance,  and  one  that  would  have  the  most 
imtiring  zeal  for  the  minutia  of  your  faith,  as  the  Pharisees  of  old  had  for  mint, 
rue,  r.nd  cummin  ;  in  your  attention  to  which,  he  would  praise  and  commend 
you  above  all  others,  and  insensibly  lift  up  your  minds  in  pride,  and  a  disposi- 
tion to  measure  and  compare  yourselves  with  those  around  you  ;  contrary  to 
the  command  given  us  to  kno\y  no  man  after  the  flesh,  but  to  judge,  if  we 
would  judge  correctly,  by  the  fruit  of  the  spirit ;  whicfws,  love,  joy,  peace, 
long-suffering,  gentleness,  goodness,  faith,  meekness,  temperance.  He  would 
be  full  of  exclamation  of  "  Lord,  Lord,  we  prophecy  in  thy  name  :"  that  is, 
not  denying  the  eternal  power  and  Go(J  head  of  Jesus  Christ,  but  readily  ac- 
knowledging him  to  be  the  King  of  kings,  and  Lord  of  lords ;  the  Almighty's  - 
Fellow,  and  Father's  equal ;  Creator,  Upholder,  final  Judge,  and  Disposer  of 
all  worlds ;  together,  with  the  admission  of  his  being  the  end  of  sin,  by  the  sa- 
crifice of  himself,  and  the  Lord,  our  everlasting  righteousness.  Here,  how- 
ever, he  would  stop ;  having  charmed  your  ears  with  these  great  swelling 
words,  and  words  without  knowledge,  he  would  have  you  to  repose  upon  these 
abstract  truths ;  because  all  these  things  you  might  hear,  and  read,  and  histori- 
cally believe,  to  the  end  of  your  lives,  and  be  damned  as  certainly  as  Satan 
himself  is !  Wherever  there  is  a  ministry  that  stops  here,  you  may  rely  upon  it, 
that  there  is  a  devil  in,  and  destruction  folio  wing  it — it  is  Satan  transformed  in- 
to an  angel  of  light — it  is  hell  moving  to  deceive,  and  make  a  prey  of  the  human 
soul,  in  its  master  stroke  of  machination.  To  accomplish  that,  it  will  be  no 
marvel  if  the  Devil,  in  some  instances,  gives  up  all  reference  to  pecuniary  con- 
siderations ;  particularly,  if  it  is  likely  to  give  his  doings  the  greater  appear- 
ance of  good  intentions.  However,  he  generally  makes  a  liberal  compensa- 
tion to  his  agents,  in  some  way  or  other  :  and  if  he  does  not  permit  them  t© 
touch  the  fleece  of  the  sheep,  he  will,  perhaps,  give  them  a  fat  flourishing  ewe 
from  the  goat-herd. 

But  to  return  to  the  subject  immediately  before  us :  and,  of  all  such  minis- 
try, we  must  say,  that  it  is  but  an  illustraiion  of  the  words  of  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ  already  quoted ;  namely,  "  not  every  one  that  saith  Lord,  Lord  unto 
me  shall  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven."  No,  brethren,  we  profess  to  be- 
lieve, that  God  the  Holy  Ghost,  only,  can  make  a  saving  application  of  thg 
gospel  of  Christ  to  our  souls,  by  its  immediate,  enlightening  and  regenerating 
influences :  that,  without  this,  the  gospel  is  but  a  dead  letter.  We  profess  to 
bebeve,  that  the  adorable  Spiiit,  proceeding  from  the  Father  and  the  Son,  is 
the  great,  the  glorious,  the  soul  refreshing  promise  of  the  J^ew,  as  Jesus  Christ 
was  the  promise  of  the  Old  Testament.  What  think  you  then  of  the  man,  as  a 
minister  in   your  denomination,  who  never  preaches  this  doctrine?     What  to 


91 

best,  is  all  equivocation  in  his  remarks  upon  it?  and  who,  in  truth,  does  not  be- 
lieve in  it?  ave  you  going  lo  call  such  a  one,  brother  !  can  you,  as  inin/slrr;!  and 
]^eo[)]e,  possibly  consider  yuursdves  at  lihcrly^  to  welcome  to  your  churches, 
and  phice  in  your  pulpits,  a  man  entertaining  such  sentiments  as  these?  a  man, 
that  will  tell  you,  there  is  no  spirit  to  rengenerate  and  quicken  in  righteous- 
ness ;  no  Holy  Ghost  for  those  who  ask  it  of  God  :  no  comforter  for  the  saints 
now :  no  spirit  to  make  intercession  for  them  with  groanings  which  are  unut- 
terable ;  or,  to  bear  witness  with  their  spirits,  that  they  are  the  children  of 
God;  and  to  seal  them  heirs  of  heaven.  O!  brethren,  what  a  rent  is  here 
made  in  the  rock  of  your  salvation!  the  heavens  become  shrouded,  the  sun  of 
righteousness  is  hid  from  your  eyes,  the  stars  of  glory's  firmament  vanish  from 
your  view.  What  craelly,  injustice  and  fraud  is  there  contained  in  the  at- 
tempt to  fill  your  hearts  with  unbelief  in  this  glorious  doctrine.  I  repeat,  that 
it  is  the  master  stroke  of  hell's  machinations  against  your  souls',  that  as  many  of 
you  as  indulge  in  any  such  sentiments,  you  have  reason  to  consider  yourselves 
reprobates ;  and  that  if  you  die  in  this  state,  you  must  inevitably  be  damned. 
So,  then,  you  were  under  delusion,  when  you  thought,  that  God  the  Holy 
Ghost  convinced  you  of  sin,  of  righteousness,  and  judgment  to  come;  whea 
you  saw  and  fclf,  your  hearts  all  deceitfulness  and  desperately  wicked ;  when 
you  were  broken  and  contrite  in  spirit ;  when  ynu  felt  your  souls  to  draw  nigh 
unto  the  grave,  and  your  lives  to  the  destroyers.  You  were  under  a  delusion, 
then,  when  you  thought  that  God,  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  gave  you  the  oil  of  joy 
'or  mourning,  the  garment  of  praise  for  the  spirit  of  heaviness.  You  have  been 
under  a  delusion,  then,  in  the  thousand  instances  wherein  you  thought,  that 
you  found  fellowship  with  the  Father  and  Son,  and  communion  with  the  Holy 
Ghost.  You  have  been  mistaken  when  you  have  thought  that  at  a  throne  of 
grace,  in  prayer  and  supplication,  God  has  lifted  your  souls  from  a  sea  of  trou- 
ble to  a  peace  that  passed  all  understanding  ;  from  awful  wretchedness,  to  joy 
unspeakable.  You  have  been  mistaken  too,  when  reading  the  Scriptures, 
you  thought  you  sav  ,  in  a  moment,  a  glory,  and  fulness,  and  loveliness,  in  the 
salvation  of  the  cross;  and  through  the  august  agenci/  of  the  Holt/  Ghost,  that 
surpassed  the  power  of  language  .to  describe,  and  greater  than  you  could  ever 
have  acquired,  through  a  life  of  ten  thousand  years,  unoperated  upon  bj'  that 
Spirit  who  reveals  the  things  that  belong  unto  Christ.  You  then,  and  all  the 
precious  souls,  of  those  highly  intellectual,  gifted,  holy  and  spiritual  mea 
whose  memories  are  embalmed  in  hymns,  and  psalms,  and  sjiiritual  songs,  as 
well  as  other  impressive,  soothing,  sanctifying  writings ;  you,  T  say,  and  they» 
have  all  been  uuder  a  delusion,  a  phantasy  of  the  brain;  for  Mr.  C.  says  so- 
Ah!  Mr.  Cs.  master  is  a  bold  and  imprudent  accuser :  he  had  the  audacity  t6 
tell  the  Almighty  to  hisfacp,  that  he  did  not  believe  in  his  servant  Job's  erpc' 
rience  ;  neithfc^  in  lh:.t  of  "  Jushua  and  his  fellows,"  whom  he  followed  to  hea- 
ven, to  deride  and  accuse  as  fanatics.  And  you,  my  brethren,  are  to  expect 
Satan,  and  all  unregenerated  men,  to  treat  your  holy  things  as  swine  treat 
pearl.  "The  natural  man  understandeth  not  the  things  of  the  spirit,  for  they  are 
foolishness  to  him:  neither  indeed,  can  he  understand  them,  for  they  are  spirit- 
ually discerned."  He  may  nevertheless,  talk  and  write  with  as  much  volu- 
bility, energy  of  language,  and  splendour  of  conception,  about  the  Lord  Jesu 
Christ,  as  did  Eliphaz,  Bildad  and  Zophar,  converse  with  Job  about  the  Ab 


9i2 

mighty.  Yet  they  could  never  say,  with  Job,  that  they  knew  "  their  Redeem- 
er lived."  And  in  the  end,  Jehovah  rebuked  them  for  their  empty  declama- 
tion ahoiit  himself;  and  his  wrath  fell  upon  them  while  he  told  them,  "ye 
have  not  spoken  of  me  the  thin^j  that  is  right,  as  my  servant  Job  hath."  Job 
fell  that  he  knew  the  Almighty,  for  ht  had  his  spirit  in  his  soul.  The  other? 
were  full  of  confidence,  that  they  knew  Jehovah  as  well  as  Job!  but  the  latter 
knew  they  ivere  deceived.  And  God  made  it  manifest  they  were  so  in  the  end. 
Parallell  to  this,  is  the  case  between  those  who  have,  and  those  who  have  not 
the  spirit  of  God  in  these  days.  They  may  both  talk  or  write  equally  well 
in  a  certain  degree,  of  Christ ;  but  those  who  have  the  spirit  will  know  that 
the  other  is  blind,  when  he  says  he  sees,  and  sinking  to  hell  when  professmg 
to  be  soaring  to  heaven.  Of  the  latter  character,  I  feel  but  too  much  afraid 
Mr.  C.  is.  But  you  will  make  it  I  hope,  a  subject  of  due  enquiry  :  and  if  it 
is  so,  will  you,  can  you,  dare  you  profess  fellowship  with  such  a  man?  will  you 
suffer  him  to  blaspheme  the  Holy  Ghost  (for  it  is  nothing  less  than  blcisphemy) 
by  preaching  to  you  in  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ,  without  reference  to  the  glo- 
rious oifice  of  that  adorable  Spirit,  in  the  economy  of  salvation.'  alas!  so  far  ag 
you  do  so,  it  is  ominous  of  the  most  fearful  and  disastrous  consequences  to  your 
unity,  peace,  and  spiritual  prosperity.  Whatever  may  be  the  scene  of  trial,  of 
confusion,  and  of  temporary  sacrifice  of  your  personal  feelings  ;  you  are  called 
upon,  by  every  consideration  of  fealty  to  Jesus  Christ,  of  obedience  to  his  pre- 
cepts, of  honour  for  his  gospel,  of  regard  for  his  cause,  and  the  welfare  of  Zion 
as  well  as  respect  for  your  personal  religion,  to  tear  ofi"  and  cast  from  you,  as  a 
deadly  viper,  every  individual  infested  with  those  desolatin"  sentiments. 

You  will,  I  say  again,  it  is  to  be  hoped,  make  proper  inquiry  upon  the  sub- 
ject before  you.  You  will  not  only  find  the  heterodoxy  we  have  mentioned, 
to  be  chargeable  to  Mr.  C.  but  that  many  ofhis  fraternity,  who  are  less  wary 
and  intelligent,  have  in  many  instances,  the  effrontery  to  laugh  at,  and  make 
derision  of  your  professedly,  and  really  essential  experience  as  christians.  The 
broken  and  contrite  spirit,  the  new  heart,  the  disquieted  and  cast  down  soul 
the  groaning  intercessions,  the  fears  within  and  fightings  vr ithout ;  together 
with  all  that  proves  you  to  be  of  the  number  of  God's  people,  whom  he  has 
"chosen  in  the  furnace  of  affliction,"  and  who  "have  fellowship  with  the  Lord  Je- 
sus Christ  in  his  sufferings; '  all  this  is  considei  ed  by  them,  as  the  price  of  a  mis- 
guided and  distempered  brain-  So,  also,  are  the  opposite  circumstances  in  your 
new  and  spiritual  liie ;  wherein,  you  have  refreshings  from  the  presence  of  the 
Lord  when  his  candle  shines  bright  upon  your  tabernacle  ;  when  you  feel  that 
your  body  is  the  temple  oftheHoly  Ghost,that  he  is  imbuing  allyoui  thoughts, 
and  affections,  with  the  constituents  of  his  own  glorious  kingdom ;  whereof 
is  joy  unspeakable,  peace  that  passeth  all  understanding  of  the  unregenerate 
mind,  love  to  God,  all  vehement  and  devouring;  views  of  the  ai' -arable  person, 
and  work  of  Christ,  as  mediator  unutterably  ravishing  and  glorious ;  and  un- 
der which  views,  your  souls  become  clothed  with  humility,  meekness,  gentle- 
ness, patience,  and  all  the  bright  hues  that  characterize  the  "garments  of  sal- 
vation." All  these  things,  in  the  history  of  your  life  of  faith  are  estimated, 
and  spoken  of,  by  these  formalists,  as  was  the  power  and  influences  of  the  Ho- 
ly Ghost,  through  the  instrumentality  of  Christ  and  his  Apostles,  spoken  of  by 
the  Jews.  In  the  latter  case,  there  was  a  sinning  against  the  Holy  Ghost,  for 
which  there  waa  no  forgiveness ;  aixd  in  the  former  case,  it  may  be  said,  "  Be- 


hold,  ye  despisers,  and  wonder  and  perish :  for  I  work  a  work  in  your  day,  a 
work  in  which  ye  shall  in  no  wise  believe,  though  a  man  declare  it  .into  you." 
Mr.  C.  and  his  followers  do  not  believe  in  this  work! Hherefore,  "they  shall 
all  likewise  perish;"  unless  that  spirit,  against  whom  they  are  doing  despite, 
shall  make  them  wise  to  salvation.  Brethren,  I  have  dwelt  lousrer  upon  the 
subject,  than  I  coatcmplated  to  do  ;  but  its  vital  importance  to  a  savins;  know- 
ledge of  Jesus  Christ,  will  justify  all  my  remarks.  Indeed,  take  it  away  from 
the  Baptist  church,  and  I  would  as  soon  have  connexion  with  a  body  of -oci- 
niaa%  or  a  club  of  Deists,  as  with  them.  The  question  returns ;  is  Mr.  C.  and 
his  loiiowers  chargeable  with  such  views  as  we  have  stated?  and  if  they  ar€» 
well  may  we  exclaim  with  Jacob  of  old,  (Jacob,  brethren,  was  an  Israelite,  m- 
deed — the  first  of  all  the  Israelites :  and  what  made  him  an  Israelite?  prayer! 
noon-day,  midnight,  fervent,  effectual  prayer!  are  you  Israelites,  indeed!!)  "O 
my  soul  come  not  thou  into  their  secret ;  and  unto  their  assembly  mine  honoup 
be  thou  not  united." 

Brethren,  1  shall  occupy  but  little  more  of  your  time,  having  had  your  at- 
tention to  what  I  consider  the  great,  the  conclusive  and  absolute  evidence,  that 
Mr.  C.  and  those  who  think  like  him,  are  unregenerated  people.  And  I  have 
yet  to  learn,  that  any  body  of  people,  calling-  themselves  a  regular  Baptist 
church,  ever  admitted,  that  an  unregenerate  man  was  fit  material  for  church- 
fellowship,  much  less  to  be  a  ministerof  the  church  of  Christ.  With  an  aspiran^ 
after  worldly  fame,  however,  with  one  who  woidd  be  the  founder  of  some 
new  sect  in  religion,  the  character  of  the  material  of  which  it  is  to  be  formed, 
will  be  of  secoudary  con■^ideration.  The  first  and  important  point  will  be,  to 
get  the  material,  and  then  follows  the  work  of  bringing  it  toge'her  and  giving 
it  some  semblance  to  the  Church  of  Christ  To  the  mind  of  the  real  and  ^ji^t- 
ritoaZ  Christian,  however,  all  those  imitations  of  the  work  of  God,  the  Holy 
Ghost,  will  bear  no  more  resemblance  to  the  reality,  than  does  the  clums},half 
human,  half  brute  idol  of  the  Hindoo,  to  the  beauty  of  a  well  proportioned  man  • 

Brethren,  let  me  beseech  you,  by  the  mercies  of  ^od,  again  to  ask  your- 
selves, individually,  and  as  churches,  if  Mr.  C's.  controversies  about  baptism  « 
have  done  you  any  real  service?  if  they  have  made,  one  thought  more  holy!  one 
affection  more  spiritual!  one  moment  of  your  lives  more  heavenly  and  happy! 
Did  .Vlr  C's.  preaching  to  you  ever  humble,  and  abase,  uud  empty  you,  to  the 
end,  that  you  might  learn,  experimentally,  (not  speculatively  or  notionally) 
the  fulness  treasured  up  in  Christ.  O,  did  it  ever  make  you  feel,  (not  merely 
think  or  say)  that  you  are  nothing,  and  that  Christ  is  all  in  all.  Does  he  by  his 
orations,  orwritings»  clothe  your  minds  with  solemnity,  fill  your  hearts  with 
hunger ings  and  thirst ings  after  righteousness ;  expand  your  breasts  in  mighty 
supplications  to  the  Goil  and  father  ot  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  by  day  and  by 
ni^ht;  wean  you  from  the  world,  and  make  your  conversation  to  be  in  heaven, 
in  a  word,  has  he  ever  done  any  thing  to  diffuse  the  power  of  Godliness  in  your 
hearts  as  individuals?  to  promote  yoar  peace,  unity,  and  spiritual f'llawship  ag 
churches?  or  your  essential  beau(y  and  glory  as  a  denoniinat:on,  by  making 
you  conspicuous  among  the  sects  in  the  christian  world,  in  holiness  unto  the 
Lorrf, and  not  in  mere  talkativeness  and  vaui  contention  with  men.  On  the  con- 
trary, has  not  his  verbose  disputations  about  the  ordinance  of  baptism,  been  of 
serious  injury  to  you  individually,  by  making  you  think  more  highly  of  your- 
selves than  you  ought  to  think;  and  by  lessening  your  prayerful  attention  to 


94 

essential  faith  Jiope  and  charity — "to  the  things  that  accompany  salvation,"  and 
that  make  the  possessor  meek  and  lowly   in  heart.  Does  not  his  preaching 
leave  upon  your  minds  the  conviction,  that  he  addresses  you  exactly  upon  the 
same  principle, and  to  the  same  end,  that  an  attorney  speaks  for  his  client,  or 
that  an  office  hunter  harangues  at  the  hustings!  that  is  that  he  may  "rise  to 
shine" — that  he  may  appear  great  by  putting  all  others  below  his  own  level, 
Yes,  brethren,  you  know,  that  however  much  Mr.  C.  may  have  amused,  or  even 
informed  your  minds  by  his  preaohmg,  he  never  was  the  means  of  sending  any  of 
you  in  Godly  sorrow  to  a  throne  of  grace  ;he  never  made  you  humble  nor  self- 
a-based,  nor  comforted  your  souls  when  •' enduring  the  fight  of  affliction,"  in 
•which,  and  to  which,it  hath  pleased  God  to  choose  his  truly  believing  people. 
Instead  of  this,  brethren,  he  has  attempted  to  rob  you  of  the  only  ''comforter"; 
that  you  can  possibly  have  in  this  life  of  tribulation — 1  mean,  the  adorable,  the 
condescending  Holy  Ghost,without  whose  inliuences,your  souls  will  become  inu 
poverished  and  lean.,your  minds  vain  and  arrogant,  yourheaj-ts  hard  and  impeni- 
tent.    O,  brethren,  hell  triumphs  most  fearfully  over  you,  if  any  of  you  have 
given  up  your  belief  in  the  spirit's  influences.     God  grant  that  it  may  not  be 
to  demonstrate  that  you  are  reprobates ;  but,  to  teach  you  how  foolish,  and 
how  beast-like  you  were  in  giving  heed,  for  one  moment,  to  the  blasting,  with- 
ering, damning  doctrines  of  innovators  upon  the  faith  of  God's  elect.     You 
know,  brethren,  thatthei-e  is  a  veil  upon  the  hearts  of  theJews,  so  that  they 
cannot  understand  the  coming  of  the  "  Son  of  man,"  though  he  is  the  great  bur- 
then of  all  the  ceremonies  and  prophecies  of  the  Old  Testament,  and  though  the 
very  day  of  his  being  "  cut  otf  for  the  sins  of  the  people"  is  therein  predicted- 
Yet  these  Scriptures  they  always  have,  and  do   continue  to  read  incessantly. 
Exactly  similar  is  the  case  with  Mr.  C.  and  those  that  think  as  he  does,  in  refer- 
ence to  the  New  Testament!  those  that  do  not  receive  the  spirit's  influences,  are 
no  more  benefitted  by  reading  the  JVe/c,  than  the  Jews  are  in  reading  the  Old 
Testament.  They  might  both  read  to  eternity  and  be  still  ia  daricness!    or,  as  an 
Apostle  says,  "ever  learning,  and  never  able  to  come  to  a  knowldge  of  the 
truth."     Six  million  of  Jews,  however,  are  ready  to  rise  up  and  declare  that  they 
do  understand  the  Scriptures  of  the   Old  Testament,  and  that  the  Messiah  i'^ . 
not  yet  come.     But  this  only  shows  how  blind  and  deluded  are  their  minds? 
and  that  they  are  capable  of  asserting,  and  even  swearing  to  a  lie.     And  if  six 
million  of  Campbellites,  or  more  properly  speaking,  Glassites  and  Sandemin- 
ians,  were  to  swear  that  there  was  no  Holy  Ghost  now,  to  opei-ate  specially, 
and  immediately  upon  the  human  soul,  it  must  only  be  considered  ns  an  evi- 
dence, that  they  were  equally  as  blind  and  wretched  in  their  spiritual  condi- 
tion as  the  Jews!  ah,  and  just  as  consistent  and  pious  would  it  be,  for  professors 
of  religion  to  go  to  a  synagogue  to  learn  gospel  truth,  as  to  an  assembly  of  the 
Sandeminians^  or  those  denying  the  doctrine  of  the  spirit^s  influence.' 

But  I  have  digressed,  and  no  wonder,  for  the  subject  to  which  I  uninten. 
tionally  returned,  is  so  awfully, and  essentially  important,  that  I  could  write 
the  same  things  to  you  about  it  a  thousand  times,  if,  peradventure,  I  might 
succeed  in  stirring  up  your  pure  minds  to  a  proper  concern  about  it.  I  was 
saying,  that  Mr.  C.  in  his  preaching  or  writings  makes  you  not  more  holy, 
more  humble,  more  heavenly  minded,  or  spiritual:  but,  as  numbers  of  you  have 
told  me,  he  appears  to  darJjea  counsel  by  words  without  knowledge  !  be  con- 


95 

fuses  and  perplexes  your  miuds !  he  disquiets  your  souls !  troubles  your  hearts, 
and  causes  you  to  call  in  question  all  that  the  blessed  Spirit  of  your  dear  Jesus 
has  done  tor  your  precious  souls  !  so  that  you  have  been  led  to  abandon  your 
closet  devotions,  your  family  prayers,  and  all  hope  of  keeping  up  a  holy  and  sen- 
sible communion  with  your  God.  Alas  !  this  is  "  making;  havoc  of  the  chur- 
ches" indeed!  The  cruelties  of  Saul  of  Tarsus  were  tender  mercies  compared 
to  this.  Flee  then,  "  ye  prisoners  of  hope,"  flee  from  this  plague,  pestilence  arid 
/«7Hme,  that  is  stalking;  forth  in  your  churches !  turn  to  the  strong  holds  of 
God's  elect,  the  salvation  of  your  souls  through  sanctijication  of  the  Spirit,  and 
belief  of  the  truth  !  this  is  the  strong  hold,  this  is  the  only  hope  of  every  true 
believer,  of  his  ever  being  made  mete  for  the  inheritance  of  the  saints  in  light. 
By  this  he  feels  sensible, that  "the  love  of  God  is  shed  abroad  in  his  heart,"  and 
without  this  he  knows  that  all  men  would  lie,  if  they  said  they  loved  God,  or 
knew  auy  thing  of  his  love  in  their  own  souls!  Again,  brethi-en,  ts  not  Mr.C,  at- 
tempting to  destroy  your  ronjideme  in  your  tmnisters,  and  to  have  you  lay  aside 
your  church  order  and  discipline  ?  What  is  this  for  ?  Suppose  for  a  moment 
that  you  have  done  it,  and  we  will  soon  shew  you  the  object  in  view.  Well, 
all  is  still !  Mr.  C.  has  commanded,  and  the  Baptist  churches  around  him  have 
silenced  their  ministers ;  they  have  tlirew  away  their  discipline  ;  they  are  one 
and  all  searching  the  scripture  for  themselves.  Nobody  but  Mr.  C.  dare  put 
a  foot,  or  move  a  tongue  among  them  as  a  minister.  But  there  soon  appeal's 
some  difference  of  sentiment :  the  low  murmur  and  muttering  of  contention 
is  heard  !  Mr.  C.  has  calculated  upon  this  :  he  knows,  that  it  must  arise :  he 
secretly  fosters  and  promotei  it :  it  grows,  it  rises,  it  rages  to  such  a  calami- 
tous extent,  that  at  last  tt  is  agreed  on  all  sides  to  refer  the  differences 
to  Mr.  C\  that  he  shall  be  umpire;  and  that  rather  t/ian  endure  such  feud  and 
confusion,  they  will  submit  to  whatever  Mr.  C.  may  say  is  faith  and  order.  And 
thus  he  becomes  your  rabbi,  your  master,  your  pope,  your  antichrist.  There — 
that  is  what  Mr.  C.  is  after,  or  sometliing  nearly  allied  to  it.  And  I  challenge 
the  whole  history  of  mankind,  in  their  political,  social,  and  domestic  compact, 
to  prove,that  that  must  be  what  Mr.  Cor  any  other  man  designs,  when  either 
shall  make  a  proposition  to  cast  away  known  principles  of  union,  and  rules  of 
order  among  any  body  of  men.  I  say,  1  appeal  to  the  whole  history  of  mankind 
through  past  ages,  aad  to  every  living  person  around  us,  of  sense  and  observa- 
tion, to  prove,  that  such  a  proposition  must  be  coupled  with  the  design  specifi- 
ed, or  that  the  proposition  itself  must  come  from  a  fool!  but  Alexander  Camp- 
bell is  not  a  fool — ergo,  Alexander  Campbell's  design  must  be  as  above  repre- 
sented. Brethren,  with  such  a  proposition  before  you,  a  proposition  to  sur- 
render your  faith,  your  ministry,  your  discipline,  you  ought  to  rise  in  holy 
indignation,  and  respond — "No,  sir,  wc  shall  not  trifle  with  our  own  souls, 
'nor  with  the  militant  existence  of  our  denomination  in  this  manner!  The 
'glorious  sum  and  substance  of  the  gospel  scheme  of  salvation  is  found  spread 
'  out  incidentally  through  the  scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments  ;  our 
'venerated  and  pious  brethren,  who  have  preceded  us  in  the  pilgrimatre  of  this 
'  life,  have  brought  together  and  embodied,  all  the  grand  outlines  of  that  so- 
'  vereign,  finished,  everlasting,  special  and  spiritual  salvation  :  and  connected 
'therewith  a  clear,  sufficient  and  gospel  exhibit  of  the  discipline  necessary  for 
'  the  well  being  of  the  church  militant.  Both  have  been  tried,  and  re-tried  a 
'  thousand  times  told,  and  compared  and  recompa red  with  the  scriptures  in 


96 

*  instances  without  number,  and  never  found  other  than  pure  gold  \  It  is  only 
t  when  it  i?  siibjeteed  to  the  moral  breath  of  unre^enerat'=-d  tnfin,  that  it  be- 
. » comes  dim  !  and  in  this  very  incident,  we  have  warning  given  us  of  the  pre- 
'sence  of  impostors!  we  shall  therefore  retain  our  precious  faith  as  a"mea- 
'suring  line  for  that  part  of  spiritual  Jerusalem  which  we  constitute ;  and  our 
'discipline,  for  those  unrenewed,  refractory,  innovating  and  ambitious  spirits 
'  which  the  Devil  niay  be  permitted  to  send  in  among  us,  to  try  our  brother- 
'hood  and  iellowship,  as  well  as  patience  and  forbearance ;"  for,  as  it  is  writ- 
'"  ten,  there  must  be  also  heresies  among  us,  that  they  v/hich  aie  approved 
'may  be  made  manifest  among  us."     We  shall  not,  sir,  confide  in  a  man  who 

*  shall  make  us  any  such  proposition;  we  shall  not  gratify  him  by  joining  him 
'in  spouting  and  blowing,  like  so  many  grampus  whales,  against  other  denomi- 
'  nations,  and  as  if  it  were  the  whole  sum  of  our  business  and  happiness  in  this 
'life.  We  shall  not,  sir,  believe  that  man  a  Baptist  at  all,  or  deserving  the 
'name  of  a  Bajjtist,  who,  in  public,  creates  the  spirit  of  general  contention^ 
•and  in  private  of  local  animosities :  who  would  have  us  renounce  onr  well 
'  known,  clear,  solid,    and    glorious  faith,  for  his,  which  no  one  can  define  or 

•  understand.  We  will  not,  sir,  throw  ourselves  into  a  sea  of  tumult  and  con- 
'  fusion  by  giving  up  our  discipline  and  order,  to  the  end  that  you  may  have 
'  an  opportunity  to  pull  as  out,  or  <lo  something  in  our  behalf,  and  to  prevent 

*  our  drowning,  for  which  we  should  be  compelled  ever  after  to  bow  our  necks 
•to  the  yolce  of  your  arrogant  dictum,  and  pay  you  your  price.     We  will  not 

*  confide  in  the  man  who  calls  in  question  the  general  character  of  our  minis- 
'  ters,  who  serve  us,  for  the  most  part,  for  less  than  what  dads  them  comforta- 
'  bly,  and  in  many  instances  for  less  than  what  really  hides  their  nakedness, 
'  Avhether  of  seasonable  or  unseasonable  clothing.  '  We  will  not  support  that 
'man,  who    is   evidently  unable    to  raise  himself  by  any    intrinsic  merit,  and 

♦  therefore  resorts  to  the  prostration  of  the  character  of  others,  that  he  may  get 

♦  a  pedestal  on  which  to  perch  his  own  insignificant  self  in  ephemeral  distinc- 

♦  tion.  No,  sir,  we  will  do  none  of  these  things ;  and  besides,  for  what  would 
♦you  have  us  rise  with  you  in  this  hubbub  of  solicitude  for  the  conversion  of 
'the  PEcdo-baptisis  to  our  order?  are  their  ministers  the  designing,  selfish, 
'  covetous,  luxurious  and  effeminate  creatures  that  you  have  represented  them 

•  to  be .''  and  is  it  these  characters,  forsooth,  that  you  want  to  bring  in  amon^ 
»  us ! !  is  a  dipping  in  the  water  to  change  them .''  it  must  be  you  think  so  !  or, 

♦  you  intend  to  bring  them  into  our  denomination  dripping  with  all  their  exis- 

♦  tent  loathsomeness  !  and  is  this,  sir,  your  kindness,  your  zeal  for  us  .'.'  ah.'  sir, 
'  do  not  be  surprised  if  we  tell  you,  that  suspicion  of  yourself  begins  to  flitter 
'  o'er  our  minds .'  But  you  would  proselyte  not  only  ministers,  but  people, 
tone  and  all,  in  the  Paedo-baptist  churches  to  our  order.  Now  is  it,  or  is  it 
'not  true  Wlien  the  prophet  says,  "like  priest,  like  people f"  We  have  n« 
I  doubt  but  what  you,  by  this  time,  think  the  saying  is  correct ;  indeed  your 
'  own  writings,  accord  therewith  ;  then,  sir,  as  an  additional  expression  of  your 
'lovmg  kindness  and  tender  mercies  to  the  Baptist  denomination,  you  are  put- 
'  ting  forth  all  your  energies  for  the  purpose  of  proselyting  the  ministers  and 
<  people  of  the  Paedo-baptist  churches  to  us,  stinking  in  all  that  filthiness,  he- 
'  terodoxy,  pride,  luxury  and  unregeneracy,  in  which  you  have  been,  and  still 
'  are  holding  them  up  to  our  view  .'.'  O,  if  this  be  an  expression  of  your  zelal, 
'  what  must  be  your  opposition .'  if  this  be   an  expression  of  your  love,  what 


97 

'  would  be  your  hatred.'  We  have  somev/here  read  that "  the  tender  mercies 
'  of  the  wicked  are  cruelties ;"  and  really,  we  think,  if  you  did,  or  do  mean  us 
'well,  we  are  likely  to  have  no  better  evidence  of  it  than  the  wicked  give  us 
'of  mercy.  Seriously,  sir,  ascertain  if  you  are  not  under  some  similar  and 
'ffiarful  mistakf,  in  regard  to  your  service  for  us,  that  Saul  of  Tarsus  was* 
'  when  he  thought,  that  by  going  to  Damascus  and  making  havoc  of  the  church 
'  he  was  doins;  God  service  I  Saul  was  quite  as  great,  scholastic,  and  intellec- 
'  tual  a  man  as  you,  and  yet  he  was  subject  to  this  awful  delusion  ;  that  is,  he 
'denied  Jesus  Christ  of  Nazareth! — you,  the  Holy  Ghost  from  heaven! — 
'"par  nobile  fratrum."  Think,  sir,  we  say,  upon  this  subject;  go  down  and 
'  tarry  a  little  season  at  Jericho  ;  at  least,  until  you  have  a  few  scattering  hairs 
'  of  testimony  for  to  shew  us,  that  you  are  a  regenerated  man  !  As  for  us,  sir, 
'we  shall  proceed  to  make  proselytes  of  the  Paedobaptists  by  the  use  of  eu- 
'  tirely  different  means,  to  what  you  have  been  using ;  our  weapons  shall  not 
'  be  carnal  but  spiritual,  and  thereby  mighty  to  the  pulling  down  of  the  strong 
'holds  of  sin  and  Satan.  We  will,  sir,  through  the  spirit  of  Christ  strengthen- 
'  mg  MS,  rise  and  shake  ourselves,  as  a  denomination,  from  the  dust,  and  put 
'  on  the  beautiful  garments  of  salvation — we  will  out-pray,  out-labour,  and 
'  out-love,  our  Paedo-baptist  brethren,  in  the  gospel  of  Christ ;  we  will  be 
'  ambitious  to  set  them  an  example  in  all  manner  of  Godliness,  to  demonstrate 
'  ourselves  to  be  holiness  unto  the  Lord  !  in  unity,  peace  and  concord  among 
'  ourselves.  This  shall  be  the  method  to  which  we  will  resort,  to  malce  them 
'  take  knowledge  of  us,  that  we  have  been  with  Christ  and  learned  of  him, 
t  that  we  love  one  another  :  and  by  which,  we  will  compel  them  to  inquire 
'  after,  and  adopt,  every  minutia  of  our  faith.  Thus  we  will  manifest  to  them, 
'that  we  have,  and  enjoy,  the  fellowship  of  the  Father  and  Son,  and  the  com- 
'munion  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  Holy  Ghost!  O  glorious,  blessed  and  sanctify- 
'  ing  bond  of  union  between  all  the  regenerate  on  earth,  and  all  the  ransomed 
J  before  the  throne  of  God  and  the  Lamb.  Yes,  yes,  we  will  manifest  to  our 
I  Paedo-baptist  brethren  that  we  are  full  of  the  Holy  Ghost !  this  will  allure, 
'  will  constrain,  all  that  are  spiritual  among  them,  to  seek  and  solicit  a  name 
'  and  place  among  us .     And  as  for  the  many,  alas !  too,  too  many  among 

•  them,  that  are  not  spiritual  members  of  the  church  of  Christ,  we  want  them 
*■  not :  the  Lord  knows,  we  have  enough  dead  weight,  of  that  sort;  as  much  as 

•  we  can  very  well  stagger  under.  Take,  sir,  and  welcome,  from  both  denomi- 
'■  nations,  all  the  latter  description  of  material,  if  you  can  : — should  j'ou  get 
'  it,  thcreivill  be  no  lack  of  slime  and  brick  to  make  yourself  a  Babel  Tower, 
'  equal  in  height,  if  not  in  base,  to  the  mountain  Cotopaxi.  Take  it  all,  sir, 
'you  know  how  to  manage  such  material  as  that ;  but  do  not  meddle  with  the 
'"  Uvcli/  stones"  until  the  spirit  of  our  God  shall  have  made  you  a  workman 
'  therefor.  To  attempt  to  do  any  thing  to,  or  for  them,  until  you  are  thus  pre- 
'  pared,  will  prove  like  the  olHciousness  of  Drain,  in  brushing  away  flies  from 
'the  human  face  :  you  will  be  more  apt  to  injure  than  preserve  .'  We  shall, 
'  sir,  exercise  the  spirit  of  prayer  on  your  behalf;  and  should  God  the  Holy 
'Ghost,  of  whom  you  appear  to  be  entirely  ignorant,  convert  your  precious 
'soul,  you  will  then  be   welcome,  to  our  arms,  (o  our   heart,  to  our  all .'     We 

O 


98 

'  sliali  lejuice  over  you,  more  than  over  ninety  and  nine  persons  that  need  no 
'repentance;  yea,  we -will  "joy  over  you  with  singing! !" 

Ye  ministers  and  people  of  the  Baptist  denomination,  let  some  such  sen- 
timents be  expressed  by  you  towards  Mr.  C.  immediately,  and  towards  every 
one  whose  religious  views  are  what  his  are.  Never,  never  can  you  tamper 
vfith  such  glaring  errors  without  the  most  pernicious  of  consequences. — OI 
by  all  that  is  adorable  in  the  God-head !  by  all  that  is  precious  in  the  blood 
and  righteousness  of  Christ !  by  all  that  is  connected  with  the  glory  of  God 
the  Father,  the  exaltation  of  the  Son,  and  the  honour  of  his  gospel.'  bj-^  all  that 
is  essential  to  the  peace,  purity,  and  welfare  of  the  chuj:ph  of  Christ  at  large' 
and  of  your  own  souls  individually  ;  I  conjure  you,  to  cast  out,  any  and  every- 
one from  your  connexion,  who  is  an  unbeliever  in  the  adorable  SpirWs  special 
influences,  in  and  upon  the  soul  of  every  real  believer.  Yea,  though  an  angel 
from  heaven  should  guinsaj'  the  doctrine,  be  true  to  your  blessed  comforter  ; 
aud tell,  e'en  an  angel,  that  he  lies.  Ah.'  the  apprehension  trembles  in  my 
heart,  that  many  of  you  have  been  living,  days,  and  weeks,  and  months,  with- 
out the  '•  communion  of  the  Holy  Ghost."  O .'  mournful  circumstances.'  O  .' 
miserable  state  .'  No  marvel,  then,  if  you  have  your  doubts  and  fears  about 
the  reality  of  the  subject,  as  part  of  the  christian's  experience.  Grieve  not  the 
^^pirit  any  more  ;  return  to  seek  his  presence,  you  shall  find  it.  The  love 
or  God  shall  thereby,  once  mork  be  shed  abroad  in  your  hearts:  your 
peace  be  as  the  rivers,  and  your  righteousness  as  the  waves  of  the  sea  .'  Satan 
shall  fall,  like  lightning  from  heaven,  and  hell  recede  from  you,  detected,  ex- 
posed and  defeated,  in  its  du-eful  master-stroke  of  machination  against  your 
souls .'  /  Full,  then,  icill  be  the  ricp  of  his  joy,  loho,  on  earth,  will  be  known  iv 
you  only  by  the  name  of 

A  REGULAR  BAPTIST- 

If  you  have  ever  understood  him  to  say,  either  in  his  preaching  or  writings. 
that  the  ordinance  of  baptism  has  any  tendency  to  wash  away  sin,  or  to  infuse 
holiness  nito  the  soul  of  man,  he  has  said  that,  which,  is  at  direct  variance  with 
the  Baptist  faith  ;  and  if  he  has  said  it  as  a  Baptist,  it  is  a  foul  slander  upoE 
them — or,  if  he  has  said,  under  the  name  of  a  Baptist,  that  there  is  no  Holy 
Ghost  to  operate  especiallv  and  essentially  upon  the  souls  of  sinners  in  con- 
version, he  has  denied  the  faith  of  the  Baptist  church — or,  if  you  have  under- 
stood him  as  saying,  that  the  moral  law  of  God  is  not  a  rule  of  conduct  for  the 
believer  in  Christ ;  that  also  is  contrary  to  the  Baptist  faith.  If  he  has  said 
that  prayer,  after  a  man  has  believed,  or  professed  to  believe  in  the  Lord  Je- 
sus Christ ;  is  not  a  duty,  and  a  marl:  of  saving  faith,  that  also  is  in  opposi- 
tion to  the  sentiments  of  the  Baptists.  If  he  has  said,  that  preaching  the  gos- 
pel since  the  apostles'  days  is  gratuitous,  and  unauthorised  by  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ ;  that  is  likewise  foreign  to  the  faith  of  the  Baptist  church.  And  if  he 
has  advanced  such  doctrines  CIS  the  foregoing,  while  prof essedly  a  Baptist,  what 
confidence  can  be  placed  in  his  honesty  or  veracity?  Could  you  consider  that 
man  your  friend,  who  was  reporting  things  of  you^by  which  you  would  be- 
(rome  disgraced  in  your  own  o.:timation;  and  that  of  others?  who  gave  curreu- 


99 

oy  to  sentiments  as  yours,  which  you  had  disavowed,  by  the  most  solemn  pro- 
fession  of  contrary  opinioDs  before  God  and  man.  Then  turn  off  your  eye^ 
from  beholdmg  "vanity"  in  Mr.  C.  or  any  other  person  of  the  same  charac- 
ter, and  remember,  that  he  who  bids  him,  God-speed,  is  a  partaker  of  his  evil 
^eeds.  * 

He  has  shown,  that  he  considers  baptism  as  either  the  whole,  or  part,  of  the 
•  being'  born  again,"  which  Christ  speaks  of."  He  has  made  Peter  say,  that 
it  is  salvation.  He  has  said,  that  it  washes  away  adultery,  theft,  &c. — and  is 
for  the  remission  of  sins ;  and  Mr.  Rigdon  has  said,  it  makes  a  man  holy  as 
an  angel ! 

In  view  of  this  exhibit  of  the  subject,  by  Mr.  C.  himself,  and  who  will 
doubt,  but  what  I  had  reason  to  charge  him,  and  iiis  fraternity,  with  the  strong 
delusion  of  believing,  that  baptism  is  a  saving  ordinance.  And  what  shall  be 
thought  of  their  bitter  invective  against  me,  for  intimating  that  they  held 
these  sentiments.  Now.  the  fallacy  of  the  foregoing  sentiments  is  known  to 
every  christian,  spiritual  Baptist ;  because,  he  feels  that  dipping  had  nothing 
to  do  in  saving  him  from  the  guilt  of  sin — it  was  the  blood  of  Christ.  He 
knows,  that  dipping  had  nothing  to  do  with  saving  him  from  the  dominion  of 
sin — it  was,  and  is,  the  Holy  Ghost .'  Every  Paido-baptist,  of  a  tnUy  spiritual 
character,  feels  the  same  Holy  Ghost — sees  the  same  Invisible  Savioui-,  in  all 
his  transcendent  fullness  of  grace  and  truth  ;  and  is  as  mighty  in  his  emotions 
of  panting  desire  after  the  God  of  his  salvation,  as  is  any  Baptist ;  and  herein. 
Baptist,  and  Paido-baptist,  have  evidence,  that  God  is  no  respecter  of  the  pei'- 
sons  of  those  whom  he  has  really  quickened  in  righteousness;  and,  conse- 
quently, that  all  ideas  of  baptism  being  essential  in  the  economy  of  salvation, 
is  in  direct  opposition  to  sober  facts,  and  every  day  experience,  with  both 
Baptist  and  Paido-baptist  believers.  Every  observing  man  of  the  world 
knows,  and  feels  satisfied,  that  there  is  nothing  effectual,  or  of  saving  influ- 
ence, in  baptism  ;  inasmuch,  as  in  too  many  instances,  he  sees  those  who  have 
been  sprinkled  with  a  little  water,  living  in  sin  /  and  those  who  have  had  wa- 
ter/)Owre<i  upon  them  in  baptism)  (as  it  is  called)  living  in  more  sin  than  he 
that  was  sprinkled .'  and  he  also  sees,  those  that  have  been  dipped  in  four  foot 
water,  committing  more  sin,  than  either  of  the  other  prolessoi's."=  Such  is  the 
fact  in  many  instances ;  and  those,  perhaps,  who  have  been  baptized  in  all  the 
modes  practised,  (that  is,  those  who  have  been  sprinkled,  poured  upon,  and 
dipped  backwards  and  dipped  forwards)  are  among  those  who  are  the  least 
holy  as  professors — a  striking  instance  to  the  point  might  be  referred  to  in 
Pittsburgh. 

I  will  take  upon  me  to  assert,  that  neither  Methodist,  Presbyterian,  Episco- 
palian, or  Baptist,  or  any  other  denomination  of  christians  who  are  of  any 

(a)  A  word  to  the  unconverted,  in  the  S'th  pajje  of  his  Letters. 

''How  tullys  this  interpretation  of  the  nexu  birth,  with  what  he  has  said  else- 
where, oi  regeneration  being  llie  Pentecostal  outpouring  of  the  spirit  !  !but  note* 
Mr.  Campbell's  contradictions  arc  too  numerous  for  me  to  think  of  noticing 
here  I  ! 

«I  am  not  to  be  understood  as  intimating,  that  the  Baptist  denomination  are 
less  pious  than  other  sects;  no,  but  the  reverse  is  my  candid  opinion. 


100 

geneial  estimation  in  the  world,  could,  with  the  shadow  of  consistency,  or  upon 
the  fundamental  principles  of  their  personal  religion,  regard  Mr.  C.  in  any 
other  light,  than  as  one  of  the  dry  bones  in  Ezekiel's  valley ;  or,  in  other 
words,  as  a  poor  deluded  unbeliever.  For  my  own  part,  I  must  confess,  that 
it  is  one  of  the  most  inexplicable  of  circumstances  that  I  have  ever  met  with, 
how  he  should  ever  be  acknowledged  as  a  believer,  in  any  part  of  the  chris- 
tian church,  after  the  public  expression  of  the  sentiments  here  quoted  from 
his  writings  :  but  above  all,  how  the  Baptist  denomination  should  tolerate 
him  for  an  hour,  as  one  of  their  ministers .'  The  substance  of  his  views  is — 
That  man,  by  na/!(re,  has  the  faculty  of  faith — that  reading  the  scriptures,  sX- 
teniively, naturally  produces  faith  from  the  testimony  of  prophecies  and  mira- 
cles— that  believing  in  the  life,  death,  and  resurrection  of  Christ,  upon  that 
testimony ,is  faith — that  faith  is  non-essential  until  connected  with  baptism— that 
thus  believing,  and  being  baptized,  and  practicing  the  morality  and  virtue  of 
the  great  prophet,  makes  a  christian  to  all  intents  and  purposes  !  Now,  the 
reveries  of  Svvedenbourg,  or  the  rationale  of  Joseph  Priestly,  is  not  more  dis- 
tinct from  savmg  faith,  than  these  views  of  Mr.  C. — Speak,  ye  mourners  in 
Zion  .'  Ye,  who  are  broken  in  heart,  contrite  in  spirit,  ye  heaA^y  ladened  and 
labouring  sinners:  speak,  and  tell  Mr.  Campbell,  that  e'er  saving  faith  in  the 
Lord  Jesus  Christ  is  realized,  you  find,  ihsX  rejientance  toward  God  is  essen- 
tially necessary — a  subject  that  he  speaks  not  of,  writes  not  of,  and  knows  no- 
king  about. 

In  page  27  of  Mr.  Greatrake's  "Miniature  Portrait  of  Alex- 
ander Campbell,-'  he  copies  from  Mr.  Campbell's  writings,  the 
following  extract,  viz. 

"The  grandeur,  sublimity  and  beauty  of  the  foundation  of  hope,  and  of  ecclesi- 
astical or  social  union,  established  by  the  author  and  founder  of  Christianity,  con- 
sisted in  this,  that  the  belief  of  oke  fact,  and  that  upon  the  best  evidence  in 
^he  ICO  rid,  is  all  that  is  requisite,  as  far  as  faith  goes,  to  salvation.  The  belief  of  this 
one  fact,  and  subjection  to  one  institution  expressive  of  it,  is  all  that  is  required 
of  heaven,  to  admission  into  the  church.  A  christian  as  defined,  not  by  Dr.  John- 
son, nor  by  any  creed-maker,  but  by  one  taught  of  heaven,  and  in  heaven,  is, 
one  that  believes  this  one  fact,  and  has  submitted  to  one  institution,  and  whose 
deportment  accords  with  the  morality  and  virtue  taught  bythe  great  prophet. 
The  one  fact  is,  that  Jesus  the  Nazarent  is  the  Messiah.  The  evidence  upon 
which  it  is  to  be  believed,  is  the  testimony  of  twelve  men,  confirmed  by  pro- 
phecy, miracles,  and  spiritual  gifts.  The  one  institution  is  baptism,  into  the 
name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  Every  such  per- 
son is  a  christian,  in  the  fullest  sense  of  the  word,  the  moment  he  has  believed 
this  one  fact,  upon  the  above  evidence,  and  has  submitted  to  the  above  men- 
tioned institution." 

On  this  extract  Mr.  Greatrake remarks  as  follows,  viz: 

"  Upon  this  principle,  it  appears  quite  evident,  that  the  Devils  want  nothing 
but  baptizing  to  be  bone  fide  christians!  They  said,  "  we  know  thee,  who 
thou  art,  thou  Holy  One  of  God."  They  said,  "  Paul  we  know,  and  Chrisj- 
we  know."    They  believed  this  ONE  fact.     They  now  believe  this  one  fact 


101 


If  .Mr.  Campbell  can  only  g-et  some  water  to  them,  or  get  them  to  some  watei-. 
he  may  have  disciples  plenl}'.  ^uerif — Were  not  the  De  ils  that  entered  iun> 
the  herd  of  swine,  believers  of  thi?  one  fact!  they  owned  Christ  to  be  the 
"  Son  of  God!"  were  they  not  "  dipped,"  (and  in  the  body  too)  they  ran  down 
into  the  sea — erjjo,  they  were  Chris^tians!!  Yes,  Mr.  C.  they  were  just  such 
believers,  and  christians,  as  your  system  makes  yourself  and  your  disciples." 


No.  ir. 

The  Religious  Characfer  of  the  Parties. 

From  W.  L.  M'Calla  to  the  Rev.  Dr.  \l.  H.  Bishop,  Piincipd  ot  .Mi.4>n 

UNIVEKSITr. 

While  memory  lasts,  mj  dear  Father,  you  must  be  often  in  my 
thoiio-hts.  I  have  reason  to  biess  that  Providence,  who  sent  yo\x 
immediately  after  your  arrival  in  America,  to  my  native  woods. 
Your  being  among  strangers  soon  gave  you  an  interest  in  my 
youthful  heart.  I  admired  the  ability  and  dignity  with  which 
Vou  fdled  the  chair  of  Loiric  and  Moral  Philosophy  in  the  Tran- 
sylvania University,  and  i  loved  your  wisdon),  piety  and  dili- 
gence as  a  Christian  and  a  Minister.  Your  labours  in  the  Univer- 
sity for  about  twenty  years,  have  laid  the  institution,  the  town, 
the  state,  and  the  Western  Country,  under  a  weight  of  obligariou 
which  they  never  can  cancel.  Notwithstanding  this,  in  the  ret- 
rograde movements  of  my  unhai)py  country,  they  seem  to  have 
treated  you  as  the  Gadarenes  did  your  master.  They  wished 
him  to  leave  them,  because  they  loved  their  swine  better  than 
their  Maker.  If  wallowing  in  the  mire  of  infidelity  and  vice 
will  make  swine,  the  Gadara  which  you  have  left,  is  well  stocked 
under  Dr.  Holley's  administration.  How  mournful  that  our 
precious  young  men  should  be  taught  immoralitv  and  nonsense, 
under  the  name  of  Moral  Science!  The  funds  of  the  institution 
are  burthened  and  ruined,  to  support  in  extravagance,  a  frequen- 
ter of  the  race-ground,  of  the  ball-room  and  of  the  theatre,  and 
a  gallant  of  theatrical  actresses,  that  he  may  set  a  literary  class 
to  laughing  at  religion  and  religious  people,  by  entertaining  theni 
with  foolish  and  profane  anecdotes  and  horrible  blasphemies,  un- 
der the  name  of  scientific  lectures !  After  the  pitiable  ignorance, 
vile  corruption,  and  base  ingratitude  exhibited  in  the  treatment 
which  you  received  there,  what  honor  does  it  reflect  upon  the 
Legislature  of  Ohio,  to  place  you  at  the  head  of  a  state  institu- 
tion! Under  a  man  of  the  religious  and  literary  qualifications 
which  I  know  you  to  possess,  I  do  not  wonder  to  hear  that  it  pros- 
pers. As  to  the  honorable  notice  which  has  been  taken  of  you 
by  most  respectable  literary  institutions  in  Scotland  and  Amer- 
ica, it  is  hoped  that  it  does  not  please  yourself,  so  much  as  it 
gratifies  your  patrons  and  annoys  your  enemies. 


1U£ 

In  the  Tiudst  of  your  triumphant  honors  and  arduous  duties,  it 
has  perhaps  never  come  to  jour  knowledge,  that  Mr.  Campbell, 
the  advocate  of  Dr.  HoUcy,  has  assailed  your  character,  by  pub- 
lishing an  anecdote  concerning  the  man  whose  name  and  office 
are  coincident.  As  it  is,  however,  to  my  own  knowledge,  a  fic- 
tion, like  many  other  things  from  the  same  quarter,  I  shall  not 
trouble  you  with  it:  but  in  its  room  permit  me  to  say  a  word  con- 
cerning his  attack  upon  my  character.  In  page  373.  of  his  book, 
he  professes  to  answer  certain  remarks  of  mine  concerning  his 
departed  father  Robinson,  his  living  brother  HoUey,  and  other 
such  gentry,  of  ''•  true  merit,"  ''the  brightest  worth,"  and  "the 
fairest  name;"  to  use  his  own  words.  Being  much  at  a  loss  for 
the  means  of  defending  such /air,  bright,  and  ,  neritorious  char- 
acters, he  consoled  himself  with  the  reflection  that  my  statements, 
deserved  no  credit,  because  he  had  heard  that  I  was  convicted  of 
slander  by  a  judicial  decision  in  a  civil  court.  His  words  are  as 
follows,  viz:  "  It  afforded  us  some  cousolation  his  testimony,  as- 
■'to  things  of  this  nature,  was  harmless,  inasmuch  as  it  was  I'e- 
••  ported,  that  he  had  lately  been  convicted  by  the  laws  of  his 
'•  own  state,  and  by  a  jury  of  his  own  country,  of  having  libell- 
*"ed  a  neighbouring  preacher."  To  this  remark  he  appends  a 
note,  in  the  following  words,  viz:  "  The  Synod  of  Kentucky  still 
•'hold  Mr.  M.  in  good  standing,  and  therefore  he  came  within 
"the  purlieu  of  my  general  invitation.  Had  I  known,  however, 
-^^  that  such  had  been  the  fact,  I  should  have  preferred  another 
"disputant." 

Here  Mr.  Campbell  insinuates  that  he  had  not  heard  this  re- 
port before  the  debate.  To  those  who  are  acquainted  with  the 
circumstances  in  which  he  was  placed,  there  is  not  the  least  room 
to  hope  that  this  is  true.  He  also  confesses  that  his  Antagonist 
'•  came  within  the  purlieu  of  my  [Mr.  Campbell's]  general  invi- 
tation." This  is  saying  in  plain  terms  that  he  is  the  challenger 
and  I  the  person  challenged  ;  the  very  opposite  of  which  he  tries 
to  prove  in  the  same  book.  The  above  quotation  moreover  con- 
tains an  insinuation  against  the  Synod  of  Kentucky,  a  meeting 
of  which,  you  and  I  both  attended,  as  members,  a  few  days  be- 
fore the  debate.  Now  it  so  happened,  that  a  deluded  clerical 
neighbour  of  mine,  whose  name  I  am  now  unwilling  to  record  in 
connexion  with  so  disgraceful  a  transaction,  brought  up,  by  ap- 
peal, to  this  very  Synod,  every  accusation  which  he  thought  could 
have  the  least  tendency  to  crush  me  :  and  although  he  was  well 
acquainted  with  this  civil  transaction,  he  did  not  charge  me  with 
any  error  in  relation  to  Mr.  Gardner,  the  preacher  referred  to 
by  Mr.  Caaipbell,  as  having  been  slandered  by  me.  The  reason 
was  that  he  knew  the  contempt  which  such  a  step  would  bring 
upon  him,  in  a  place  where  the  affair  was  so  well  known.  But 
when,  from  a  unanimous  decision  of  the  Synod,  in  my  favour,  he 
appealed  to  the  General  Assembly,  he  put  into  the  hands  of  Dr. 
Ely,  his  Counsel,  many  new  and  dreadful  reproaches,  with  dis- 


103 

cretionary  power  to  use  them  or  not  to  use  them.  The  two  which 
he  divulged,  both  related  to  Mr.  Gardner.  One  of  them  was, 
callin"-  him  a  son  of  the  Devil,  and  the  other  stated  that  he  had 
recovei-ed  damages  from  me  in  a  case  of  slander.  As  for  the  re- 
mainder of  the  Budget,  the  learned  counsel  seemed  to  insinuate 
that  they  were  of  so  serious  a  nature  that  the  developement 
might  possibly  give  an  irremediable  shock  to  the  nerves  of  the 
Ho^se.  They  were  therefore  kept  back,  whetlier  for  private  use 
or  not,  I  did  not  enquire  ;  fori  have  a  Saviour,  who  in  his  own 
time  and  way,  will  deliver  me  from  those  slanders  which  look 
me  in  th.e  face,  and  from  those  which  skulk  behind  my  back. 
He  flid  defend  me  in  the  General  Assembly,  blessed  be  his  name, 
and  mav  he  ever  preserve  me  from  the  circumstances  in  which 
the  investigation  of  that  day  placed  my  Accuser  and  liis  Coun- 
sel. You  know,  my  dear  Father,  that  I  have  been  a  grievous 
sinner  ;  but  I  believe  that  you  know  also,  that  since  I  loved  the 
Lord  Jesus  more  than  life,  1  hate  sin  worse  than  death. 

Mr.  Mathew  Gardner,  the  preacher  concerned  in  the  above 
charges,  is  in  the  connexion  and  under  the  direction  of  Mr.  Bar- 
ton VV.  Stone,  who  is  the  disciple  of  Mr.  Craighead,  Dr.  Fish- 
back's  spiritual  father.  You  are  well  aware  that  Mr.  Stone  is 
the  Apostle  of  a  sect  of  Anti-  Trinitarians,  who  as  they  use  im- 
mersion in  baptism,  and  reject  infants  from  that  ordinance,  are 
known  as  Unitarian  Baptists.  Mr.  Gardner,  of  course,  is  a 
brother  of  Mr.  Campbell,  and  must,  like  Dr.  Holley,  be  esteem- 
ed by  him,  a  man  of  "true  merit,"  "the  brightest  worth,"  and 
*♦  the  fairest  name."  He  preached  statedly  in  my  nameless  Ac- 
cuser's neighbourhood,  and  robbed  him  of  some  of  his  communi- 
cants, without  receiving  any  direct  opposition.  One  of  his  mem- 
bers who  with  several  others,  was  on  the  point  of  following  his 
apostate  brethren,  owned  the  ground  on  which  Mr.  Gardner  held 
many  of  his  crowded  meetings.  This  member  requested  me  to 
preach  in  tlie  same  place.  Just  then  a  Deacon  of  Mr.  Gardner's 
stepped  in,  and  requested  that,  as  the  weather  was  getting  cool,  I 
would  preach  in  a  school-house  occupied  by  Mr.  Gardner  in  the 
winter.  My  nameless  friend  had  never  come  thither,  to  oppose 
what  he  believed  to  be  fatal  error  ;  but  soon  after  I  preached,  he 
came  and  preached,  in  the  same  place,  for  the  first  time,  and  de- 
nounced me  to  the  assembly.  His  reason  was,  that  I  had  been 
ordained  in  Kentucky,  my  native  state,  without  the  leave  of  him 
and  his  Presbytery  in  Ohio,  who  professed  to  have  some  claims 
upon  me.  These  claims  were  fairly  and  fully  tried,  and  forev- 
er invalidated  by  the  General  assembly  of  18'2],  which  con- 
demned the  manner  in  which  a  pretended  right  had  been  exer- 
cised. They  accordingly  pronounced  my  ordination  valid. 
Notwithstanding  this,  he  accused  me  before  the  Presbvtery.  of 
the  enormous  crime  of  preaching  on  his  side  of  the  river,  near 
two  miles  from  the  spot  on  which  I  resided!  It  was  from  their 
decision  that  lie  appealed  to  tjie  upper  court,  of  which  von  were 


104 

then  a  member.  The  Synod  could  recollect  that  near  the  begin- 
ning of  this  century,  Mr.  Stone  and  his  companions  were  depos- 
ed and  excommunicated  from  our  Church,  and  that,  by  an  act  of 
th<  ir  own  body,  these  men  are,  to  this  day,  considered  as  schis- 
matic intruders  and, heretics.  They  could  see  that  Mr.  Gard- 
ner's irregularity  was  real,  while  nsine  was  only  asserted.  They 
could  see  that  1  agreed  with  my  Accuser,  who  was  an  Orthodox, 
Presbyterian  preacher,  while  Mr.  Gardner  was  an  infidel  in  dis- 
guise. They  had  evidence  that  Mr.  Gardner  had  robbed  him  of 
several  members,  and  that  I  was  instrumental  in  preventing  him 
from  entrapping  several  more,  and  that  1  had  never  taken  any  of 
his  members,  until  he  determined  to  cast  them  out  for  encourag- 
ing me  to  preach;  and  there  was  evidence  ot  record  before  the 
Synod,  that  he  and  his  Session  had  cast  out  fourteen  members, 
for  this  reason.  They  could  not  help,  therefore,  wondering  at 
his  zeal  against  me,  and  his  passive  depf^rtment  towards  Mr, 
Gardner.  The  more  I  saw  myself  out  of  the  reach  of  my  Accu- 
ser's arm,  the  more  was  I  distressed  at  his  unreasonable  persecu- 
tion. Being  delivered  from  personal  resentment,  my  heart  felt 
more  pungently  for  the  wounded  cause  of  religion.  You  well 
recollect  that  when  the  Synod  heard  the  papers  and  then  the  plea 
of  my  accuser,  I  submitted  the  case,  without  a  word  of  defence. 
Notwithstanding  the  solicitations  of  several,  I  persisted  in  my 
silence,  and  should  have  continued  so  to  do,  had  not  Mr.  Came- 
ron said,  with  a  degree  of  passion,  that,  if  the  party  had  nothing 
to  urge  in  his  defence,  he  would  move  that  the  appeal  be  sustain- 
ed. I  well  recollect  the  horror  with  which  the  synod  shuddered 
at  the  manner  in  which  the  accused  and  his  session,  and  the  ac- 
cuser's fourteen  outcast  children  had  been  treated:  and  that  for 
no  other  reason,  than  that  1  preached  the  same  doctrines  which 
he  professed,  in  a  place  where  he  never  preached,  and  to  a  people 
who  were  very  hungry,  very  needy,  and  in  very  great  danger  of 
destruction.  I  well  recollect  the  Scottish  plainness,  with  which, 
when  called  on  to  speak,  you  directed  your  awful  eye,  and  your 
significant  finger  toward  the  accuser,  and  said,  that  his  conduct 
was  like  that  which  filled  up  the  cup  of  iniquity  of  the  Jewish 
nation,  who  persecuted  the  Apostles,  because  they  preached  the 
Gospel  to  the  Gentiles.  This  persecution  aided  other  providen- 
tial difficulties  to  separate  me  from  a  congregation  between  which 
and  myself  there  was  a  tender  attachment.  Immediately  afterthat 
event,  which  was  truly  mournful  to  more  than  one  of  the  parties, 
I  came  to  this  place  to  meet  the  appeal  to  the  General  Assembly, 
who  rejected  it,  notwithstanding  the  zeal  of  the  the  able  advo- 
cate, who,  in  the  fervor  of  his  eloquence,  was  pleased  to  call  me 
a  wandering  star  and  many  such  pleasant  things.  These  events 
were  under  a  merciful  Providence,  the  occasion  of  my  settling  in 
my  present  situation,  where  I  enjoy  more  happiness,  than  I  ex- 
pected to  see  in  this  world,  after  parting  with  my  dearly  beloved 
little  flock  in  Augusta.  As  I  was  in  good  standing  with  the  Synod 
of  Kentuikv,  where  my  accuser  dared  not  charge  me  with  slan- 


i05 

Bering  Mr.  Gardner,  so  am  I  now,  in  good  standing  with  the 
Synod  of  Philadelphia,  and  that  with  the  cheerful  acquiescence 
of  mj  Accuser's  advocate.  And  if  Mr.  Campbell  or  any  one 
else,  will  attend  their  next  meeting,  or  the  next  one  to  that,  or 
the  one  following  that,  (if  I  shouhl  live  so  long,)  and  prove  to 
them  that  I  have  slandered  Mr.  Gardner,  I  promise  to  waive  the 
article  of  limitations  or  any  other  which  might  stand  in  the  way 
of  a  prosecution. 

Soon  after  the  commencement  of  my  preaching  on  the  forbid- 
den ground,  Mr.  Gardner  attended  for  tlie  purpose  of  conversing 
with  me  after  service.  As  he  had,  after  the  Unitarian  fashion, 
deceived  many  well-meaning  people,  by  a  wily  concealment  of 
his  real  character,  and  standing,  and  sentiments,  I  was  rejoiced 
at  this  opportunity  of  a  public  interview.  A  few  friendly  ques- 
tions soon  unmasked  him  to  the  view  of  the  by-standers:  after 
which  I  told  him,  in  the  same  dispassionate  manner,  the  irrecon- 
cilable difference  which  there  was, between  his  religion  and  thatof 
the  bible.  Although  he  and  Mr.  Stone  were  in  the  habit  of  pro- 
nouncing the  very  worst  condemnations  upon  Trinitarians,  they 
nevertheless  entice  many  by  a  feigned  charity  and  good  brother- 
hood. These  arts  he  tried  with  me.  He  soon  found  that  I  could 
not  accept  the  confraternity  of  a  man  who  would  deny  my  JLurd, 
trample  upon  his  atoning  blood,  reject  his  spirit,  "and  by  Good 
*♦  words,  and  fair  speeches  deceive  the  hearts  of  the  simple." 
**  Well,"  said  he,  "  VIr.  M-Calla,  as  you  will  not  allow  me  to 
call  you  Brother  M'Calla" '  Mr.  Gardner,'  said  I,  '  if  I 

*  do  not  own  you  as  a  brother,  it  is  for  the  same  reason  that  made 

*  Polyrarp  act  thus  towards  Marcion,   when  that  conspicuous 

*  teacher  entreated  him  to  own  him.     I  do  own  thee^  says  Poly- 

*  carp,  as  the  first  born  of  the  Devil. '  This  is  the  real  expression 
which  occasioned  my  Accuser's  charge  against  me  in  the  Gener- 
al Assembly.  Now  he  and  I  are  perfectly  agreed  about  Mr. 
Gardner's  real  character.  He  believes  him  as  truly  a  child  of 
the  Devil  as  Marcion,  or  Cerinthus,  or  Elymas  Would  not 
consistency,  then,  require  him  to  condemn  Polycarp,  and  Poly- 
carp's  Pastor  the  Apostle  John,  and  his  fellow  labourer,  the 
Apostle  Paul  ?  There  are  very  many  who  are  willing  to  garnish 
the  tombs  of  the  Prophets,  but  they  will  traduce  those  living 
men,  who  love  a  crucified  Saviour  better  than  their  own  charac- 
ter or  comfort- 
After  the  above  conversation,  I  continued  to  preach  in  the 

same  house  with  Mr.  Gardner,  because  it  was  built  and  furnished 
by  the  patrons  of  both  parties.  But  a  Deacon  of  his  at  last  se- 
cured the  key  and  shut  us  out,  because  he  owned  the  ground. 
The  weather  then  permitted  us  to  occupy  a  tent  in  a  grove,  only 
a  few  steps  from  the  school-house,  where  one  of  my  friends  l;;m 
permitted  Mr.  Gardner  to  hold  his  meetings.  As  Mr.  Campbell's 
brother  Gardner  and  his  people  were  better  at  wielding  tht-  ;irm 
of  flesh  than  the  sword  of  the  Spirit,  about  twenty  of  his  disci- 
ples came  in  a  body,  and  tore  down  the  standi  or  boarded  tent,  (in 

P 


106 

which  we  worshipped,)  while  Mr.  Clark,  the  owner  of  the  land 

was  remonstrating  against  the  outrage.  Previous  to  the  sabbath 
another  tent  was  built,  farther  off:  but  on  Saturday  night,  that 
also  was  demolished.  The  next  day  I  mounted  a  chair,  and 
preached  to  an  attentive  audience.  While  adverting  for  a 
few  moments  to  the  conduct  of  our  adversaries.  I  observed  that 
the  face  of  a  gigantic  hearer,  (Mr.  A..  L.)  reddened  far  too  rap- 
idly. I  therefore  had  to  turn  the  subject  into  an  exhortation  to 
patience  and  prudence,  forbearance  and  forgiveness,  lest  the  con- 
gregation should  seek  redress  in  a  summary  way,  by  tearing 
down  the  school -house.  If  they  had  done  so.  without  my  oppos- 
ing or  condemning  such  a  measure,  before  or  after  it  was  taken, 
Mr.  Campbell  would  justly  have  considered  me  more  deeply 
guilty  than  any  of  them.  Just  so  he  should  think  of  his  brother 
Gardner.  He  neither  opposed  the  measure  of  pulling  down  the 
tent,  at  first,  nor  made  it  a  subject  of  investigation  or  censure 
afterward.  He  is  therefore  more  deeply  guilty  of  this  trespass 
than  any  of  his  ignorant  and  deluded  followers.  The  instni- 
ments  by  which  he  perpetrated  this  crime  were  amerced  in  dam- 
ages to  the  amount  of  124  dollars,  in  an  action  of  trespass,  by 
the  verdict  of  a  jury  of  his  own  country:  yet  his  brother  Camp- 
bell takes  no  notice  of  this;  but  considers  him  and  all  Baptists 
free  from  all  such  charges  of  lawless  violence,  and  stigmatizes  us 
with  almost  all  the  persecution  and  tyranny  known  on  earth. 

If  Mr.  Gardner  had  been  consulted  beforehand,  it  is  probable 
that  he  would  have  had  sense  enough  to  beg  Mr.  Campbell  not  to 
bring  him  and  his  damages  into  the  public  view;  because  his  char- 
acter is  by  no  means  better  for  examination.  Like  his  Unitarian 
brother,  he  is  much  opposed  to  receiving  a  salary  for  preaching, 
but  like  him  he  has  other  ways  of  making  money  which  are  not 
remarkably  honorable.  I  shall  not  dwell  upon  his  contrivances 
to  obtain  contributions  in  money  and  clothes,  nor  the  disgraceful 
traffick  in  which  he  was  detected  and  disappointed  at  Ripley.  I 
shall  confine  myself  to  the  subject  which  occasioned  the  judicial 
decision  referred  to  by  Mr.  Campbell  But,  no.  So  inconsis- 
tant,  disgusting  and  disgraceful  was  the  occupation  of  Mr.  Camp- 
bell's Clerical  brother,  that  I  am  forbidden  by  my  friend  Mr.  E. 
to  stain  my  pages  with  it  Suffice  it  to  say,  that  it  was  a  busi- 
ness to  which  he  very  naturally  added  that  of  a  horse-jocky. 

In  the  prosecution  of  these  professions,  the  Bishop  unhappily 
contracted  a  habit  for  which  his  brother  Campbell  is  remarkable. 
This  habit  adhered  to  him  in  all  his  intercourse  in  society,  even 
where  horses  had  nothing  to  do,  and  occasioned  many  unfavoura- 
ble reports  concerning  him,  some  of  which  found  their  way  into 
the  press.  A  handbill  was  published  by  Mr.  Thompson,  a  res- 
pectable Methodist  preacher,  proving  by  the  testimony  of  near 
fifty  witnesses,  that  he  was  guilty  of  telling  a  palpable  falsehood. 
In  a  horse  trade  which  he  had  with  the  husband  of  one  of  his  own 
followers,  he  shewed  almost  as  great  an  aversion  to  giving  his 
people  money  for  their  horses,  as  to  receiving  a  salary  for  his 


107 

preaching.     The  injured  man  prosecuted  Mr.  Gardner  for  fraud 
and  falsehood,  before  the  congregation.     They  met,  refused  to 
receive  Mr.  Hughes's  written  charges,  refused  to  hear  his  witness- 
es, let  Mr.   Gardner  tell  his  own  story,  let  him  take  the  chair 
and  put  tie  thing  to  vote,  and  as  there  was  no  negative,  he  pro- 
nounced the  cause  decided  in  his  favour,  and  there  it  ended. 
Mr-  Hughes  then  exposed  him  in  an  anonymous  pamphlet,  pur- 
pttrting  to  be  a  letter  from  one  of  Mr.  Gardner's  people,  to  his 
Master.  Barton  W.  Stone.     After  a  ludicrous  account  of  Mr. 
Gardner's  trial,  it  speaks  as  follows,  viz:  "  There  are  only  two 
'  things  that  can  be  lamented  in  the  whole  transaction.     One  is 
'  that  broth.-r  Gardner  imprudently  denied  the  promise  gi^en  to 
'  Mr.  Hughes,  when  there  was  evidence  at  hand  to  prove  the 

*  promise.  Another  is.  that  he  declared  that  to  be  the  first 
'  time  that  his  veracity  had  been  impeached,  when  all  the  people 
'  knew  that  Mr.  Thompson  had  proved  him  a  liar  by  scores  of 
'  witnesses.     These  things  are  to  be  regretted,  not  in  a  moral 

*  point  of  view,  for  to  a  liberal  mind,  this  is  a  mere  ^r»/7e,  (to  use 
'  a  favourite  word  of  yours;)  but  because  ot  the  effect  they  are 
'  likely  to  produce  on  a  people  not  yet  sufficiently  confirmed  ia 
'  our  system  of  religion  "     The  pamphlet  then  proceeds  to  enu- 
merate several  things  in  which  the  above  trial  of  Mr.  Gardner  is 
calculated   to   promote  the  cause  of  religion  and    civilization. 
The  third  particular  is  as  follows,  viz:  "By  this  step  the  last 

'objection  of  infidelity  to  our  religion  is  removed.  We 
'  first  stripped  the  bible  of  the  peculiar  dogmas  of  the  Genevaa 
'  School.  We  then  removed  the  mysteries  of  the  Trinity  and 
'  atonement,  (Vc.  But  with  regard  to  most  Deists,  said  old 
'  Father  llice,  '  the  greatest  of  all  objections,  the  morals,  the 
'  morals  of  the  bible  still  remain  '  Now  1  will  leave  it  to  you, 
'if  brother  Gardner's  trial  does  not  remove  this  objection.  He 
'  was  publicly  proved  a  liar  by  Mr.  Thompson,  and  he  denied 
'  befori!  the  church  that  he  had  ever  been  accused;  -he  made 
'a  promise  of  cencessions  to  Mr.  Hughes,  and  denied  that 
'  promise,  when  there  was  written  testimony  in  the  house  to 

'  prove  it; and  he  bought  a  horse,  or,  (which  is  nearly  the 

'  same  thing,)  he  bought  a  mare,  and  after  trying  to  sell  her  as 
'  his  own  property,  he  publicly  and  perseveringly  denies  the 
'  contract,  in  a  large  congregation,  where  many  of  his  own  peo- 
'  pie  and  others  also  can  attest  the  fact.  If  any  Deist,  after  this, 
'  can  think  us  righteous  overmuch,  and  be  frightened  from  join- 

*  ing  us,  by  the  rigidity  of  our  morals,  he  must  have  a  denier  con- 
'  science  indeed. " 

It  was  Mr.  Hughes's  design  to  give  point  to  the  above  pamph- 
let by  making  it  actionable.  For  that  reason  it  declared  that 
Mr.  Gardner  "  was  publicly  proved  a  liar  by  Mr.  Thompson," 
and  "that  Mr.  Thompson  had  proved  him  a  liar  by  scores  of 
witnesses.''  These  were  at  last  made  the  ground  of  a  prosecution, 
not  against  Mr.  Hughes,  but  against  myself,  who  readily  c.nfess- 
ed  both  out  of  court  and  in  it,  that  I  had  written  the  pamphlet  at 
Mr.  Hughes's  request.     1  therefore  plead  justification,  or  rath- 


158 

er  this  was  done  in  my  name,  by  those  gentlemen  of  the  bar  wh» 

generously  volunteered  their  services  in  my  defence.  For  this 
purpose  Mr.  John  Chambers,  of  Mason  county  Kentucky,  went 
to  Brown  county,  Ohio,  out  of  his  own  State,  and  put  of  his  own 
eircuit,  for  the  sake  of  doing  a  noble  action,  foi  the  very  expenses 
of  which  he  refused  to  receive  any  remuneration.  It  was  chiefly 
for  the  sake  of  Mr.  Gardners  money  that  his  lawyers  urged  the 
prosecution.  Besides  the  i-  ife  of  one  of  them  was  a  sister  Bap- 
tist, and  had  in  common  with  her  husband,  a  very  strong  per- 
sonal hatred  against  me;  and  his  other  lawyer,  an  infidel  brotner, 
■was  very  near  going  to  the  seat  of  government ^hy  the  election  of 
twelve  jurymen,  but  escaped  by  the  wickedness  of  the  States- 
Attorney,  who  was  a  relative.  The  jury  hung,  and  Mr  Gard- 
ner withdrew  the  prosecution  at  his  own  expense,  and  not  a  little 
did  it  cost  him.  Urged  by  the  avarice  and  disappointed  malice 
of  his  attorneys,  he  afterward  brought  suit  in  my  own  state,  and 
in  the  town  where  I  lived.  At  that  time  the  Baptist  with  whom 
Mr.  Campbell  afterward  lodged  in  Washington,  resided  in  Au- 
gusta, and  was  a  violent  enemj  of  mine.  I  found,  when  it  was 
too  late,  that  one  of  the  jurymen  whom  I  had  neglected  to  chal- 
lenge, was  a  bosom  friend  and  kindred  spirit  of  his.  Another 
such  man  was  received  in  the  same  way,  througW*my  ignorance, 
while  a  friend  of  mine  was  eagerly  but  vainly  endeavouring  to 
give  me  information  of  my  danger.  A  case  occurred,  which 
shewed  me  that  such  information  was  far  more  important  than  an 
inexperienced  person  would  suppose.  Before  the  trial,  an  ad- 
herent of  the  Plaintiff  harangued  a  little  knot  of  hearers,  with 
some  vehemence,  against  me,  and  in  Mr.  Gardner's  favour.  A 
friend  of  mine  who  providentially  heard  him,  informed  me  of  the 
fact,  and  appeared  particularly-  anxious  to  impress  it  upon  my 
memory,  because  the  expressions  of  this  envenomed  declaimer 
involved  a  sort  of  threat  that  he  meant  to  throw  himself  into  the 
way,  that  he  might  become  a  juryman.  The  result  proved  that 
my  informant  was  not  mistaken.  In  due  time  this  worthy  advo- 
cate of  Mr.  Campbell's  Unitarian  brother,  was  called,  and  with 
the  livid  hue  of  deliberate  perjury  on  his  lips,  declared,  under 
the  solemnity  of  an  oath,  that  he  had  never  formed  nor  express- 
ed an  opinion  upon  the  case  then  before  the  Court.  He  was  of 
course  laid  aside  by  peremptory  challenge:  but  the  mischief  was 
already  done  by  the  reception  of  one  or  two  others  whom  it  was 
too  late  to  remove.  It  was  in  vain  for  these  to  persuade  the  rest 
of  the  jurymen  that  the  expressions  of  the  anonymous  pamphlet 
wei'e  not  strictly  true.  Many  living  witnesses  had  attested 
in  court,  that  Mr.  Gardner  was  guilty  of  the  very  falsehood 
which  Mr.  Thompson  had  made  public.  Mr.  Thompson's 
handbill  was  before  them  with  the  attestation  of  near  fifty  names. 
It  V  as  therefore  too  plain  that  Mr.  Gardner  "was  publicly  prov- 
ed a  liar  by  Mr.  Thompson"  and  "  that  Mr.  Thompson  had 
proved  him  a  liar  by  scores  of  witnesses.*'  Mr.  Gardner's 
irien  is  in  the  jury  were  consequently  obliged  to  take  new  ground 
ag  in^t  mp,  which  I  was  equally  well  prepared  to  meet,  but  to 
wnich  4  i^atl  never  had  an  opportunity  of  replying,  as  it  had  never 


109 

appeared  before  the  Court.     While  in  the  jury -room,  they  per- 
auuded  their  companions  to  believe  that  if  I  was  not  guilty  of  de- 
famation, I  was  at  least  guilty  of  intrusion,  in  crossing  tlie  river 
to  )(reach  on  the  Ohio  side,  which  was  already  pre-occupied  by 
Mr.  (Gardner;  and  in  interfering  with  the  quarrel   between  him 
and  Mr.  Thompson:  so  that  although  their  favourite  might  be 
guilty  of  lying,  1  was  in  their  view,  guilty  of  meddling.     This  is 
the  substance  ot  what  I  was  informed  one  of  the  jurymen  after- 
ward related   in  Mr.  James  Armstrong's  store,     if  this  crime 
had  been  actionable,  and  I  had  been  openly  and  honourably  ac- 
cused of  it,  I  should  have  replied  that  my  preaching  on  the  Ohio 
side  was  in  compliance  with  the  earnest  solicitations,  and  the  ur- 
gent necessities  of  the  people;  that  the  place  w^s  less  than  two 
miles  from  my  own  residence;  that  during  the  greater  part  of  the 
time  it  was  on  the  farms  of  members  of  my  own  church;  and 
that,  under  my  ministry,  it  pleased  God  to   bring  a   number 
of  persons  to  give  good  evidence  of  a  change  of  heart.     If  there- 
fore they  had  put  me  in  jail  for  this  alledged  intrusion,  as  the  Phil- 
ippians  did  the  Apostle    Paul,  for  preaching  in  a  place  preoccu- 
pied by  heathenisnj,  it  would  have  been  my  privilege  to  praise 
God  in  my  bonds.     Abi  for  exposing  the  doctrinal  and  moral  char- 
acter of  an  errorist  who  preaches  in  sight  of  me,  if  this  be  med- 
dling, then  it  is  a  duty,  as  the  Apostle  John  testifies  to  the  Ephe- 
sian  Church,  when  he  says,  ''thou  hast  tried  them  which  say  they 
are  Apostles,  and  are  not;  and  hast  found  them  liars."     But  Mr. 
Gardner's  advocates  persuaded  the  jury  to  thiak  other  wise.    And 
to  this  they  were  impelled  by  an  anxiety  to  be  relieved  from  their 
confinement,  and  by  a  degree  of  compassion  artfully  excited   in 
behalf  of  Mr.  Gardner,  who  had  already  lost  the  price  of  several 
horses  in  lawyer's  fees  and  other  expenses.     This  they  seem- 
ed  to  think   might    be    a    suflicient    punishment   for   his    real 
crime;  and  for  my  supposed  oftence  of  meddling,  they  thought 
it  not  too  severe  to  make  me  in  this  last  prosecution,  pay  the 
costs,  which,  (according  to  the  technicil  use  of  that  word,)  a- 
mounted  to  less  than  seventeen  Dollars,  much  less  than  what  it 
cost  Mr.  Gardner.     In  order  to  throw  the  costs  upon  an  innocent 
man,  for  a  crime  of  which  he  was  not  even  accused,  they  were 
obliged  to  give  the  Plaintiff  a  verdict ;  and  in  order  to  its  being 
a  verdict  at  all,  it  must  award,  specific  damages.     They  there- 
fore fixed  the  damages  at  one  oknt.     Yes,  one  cent  damages 
were  given  to  Mr.  Campbell's  worthy  brother,  to  heal  the  wound 
made  in  his  character,  by   a  pamphlet  which  said  ^  that  Mr. 
Thonjpson  had  proved  him  a  liar  by  scores  of  witnesses." 

Now  remember,  this  is  the  verdict  by  which  Mr.  Cainpbell 
says  that  his  Antagonist  "  had  lately  been  convicted  by  the  laws 
of  his  own  state,  aq^d  by  a  jury  of  his  own  country,  of  having 
libelled  i  neighbouring  preacher."  This  is  the  verdict  which  lie 
quotes,  as  proving  me  unworthy  of  cretlii,  and  of  course  unwor- 
thy of  "'good  stai\ding"  in  the  Synod  of  Kentucky.  If  there 
bean)  meani.ig  in  these  declarations  of  his,  it  is  the  ftllowing. 
1.  That  my  charging  Mr.  Gardner  with  lying  was  a  false  accusa- 


110 

tion,  and  of  course,  constituted  me  guilty  of  that  crime.  This 
is  evident  from  his  pretending  that  on  this  account,  my  "testi- 
mony'' was  *'  harmless."  2.  His  insinuation  against  the  Synod 
for  continuing  me  in  good  standing  shews  that  he  would  be  un- 
derstood that  for  the  alledged  libellous  matter  of  my  pamphlet,  I 
deserved  deposition  and  excommunication  3.  He  evidently 
designs  to  make  the  public  believe  that  the  jury  agreed  with  him, 
in  treating  the  pamphlet  as  a  defamatory  libel,  and  that  they 
shewed  their  agreement  by  a  verdict  of  suitable  damages  for  the 
Plaintiff.  All  these  particulars  he  makes  to  hang  upon  one  pivot, 
the  verdict  of  the  jury.  This  he  thinks  decisive  proof  that  they 
thought  me  a  guilty  defamer  of  an  innocent  man,  and  their  think- 
ing so,  he  gives  as  the  reason  why  he  and  the  Synod  and  the  pub- 
lic should  treat  me  as  a  libeller  of  good  men.  Now  if  it  can  be 
shewn  that  the  jury  did  not  think  so,  and  that  Mr.  Campbell 
knew  it,  and  that  he  designedly  concealed  this  truth,  and  tried 
to  give  currency  to  an  opinion  which  he  knew  to  be  untrue,  it  will 
not  require  a  civil  prosecution  and  a  verdict  of  one  cent,  to  make 
his  book  and  its  author  appear  in  an  unfavourable  light.  Here  I 
will  not  stop  to  question  ^r.  Campbell's  faith  in  the  infallibility 
of  a  jury,  but  Popish  as  his  doctrine  is  on  this  subject,  I  will  sup- 
pose that  he  is  correct  in  taking  it  for  granted  that  whatever  they 
thought  concerning  my  guilt  was  right.  I  ask  what  evidence 
have  we  that  they  thought  my  pamphlet  a  false  and  defamatory 
libel  against  Mr.  Gardner.?  If  thej  really  thought  so,  can  we 
suppose  that  they  would  omit  to  award  him  sufficient  damages  to 
indemnify  him  for  his  pecuniary  disbursements  in  the  tedious 
prosecution  on  both  sides  of  the  river.?  If  two  or  three  hundred 
Dollars  would  cover  this  expense,  would  that  be  an  extravagant 
allowance.?  But  besides  his  loss  of  money  and  labour,  of  time 
and  comfort,  was  the  characterof  a  worthy,  persecuted  innocent 
man,  worth  nothing?  Solomon  says,  *'  A  good  name  is  better 
than  precious  ointment."  "  A  good  name  is  rather  to  be  chosen 
than  great  riches."  Suppose  that  I  had  robbed  Mr.  Gardner  of 
that  ointment  which  he  sold  at  Ripley,  or  of  those  riches  which 
he  made  by  keeping  and  trading  horses,  would  the  jury  have  re- 
quired me  to  restore  only  a  cent.?  But  we  will  suppose  that  they 
were  so  mistaken,  as  to  think  a  man's  character  worth  no  more 
than  the  old  board  tent  which  Mr.  Gardner's  followers  destroyed 
for  Mr.  Clark.  This  the  jury  estimated  at  one  hundred  and 
twentv-four  Dollars.  Can  any  one  believe  that  twelvp  citizens 
of  Kentucky  would  esteem  a  few  weather-beaten  boards  to  be 
woith  twelve  thousand  four  hundred  times  as  much  as  the  char- 
acterof an  innocent  persecuted  man.?  If  he  was  really  a  man  of 
truth,  I  must  have  been  extremely  culpable  in  publishing  that  he 
had  been  proved  a  liar:  and  my  guilt  was  peculiarly  agjjravated, 
for  every  body  who  saw  Mr.  Thompson's  handbill,  with  its  scores 
of  witnesses,  believed  the  truth  of  my  statement.  The  most 
respectable  members  and  officers  of  his  own  synagogue  belii^ved  it. 
His  own  lawyers  believed  it.  One  of  them  at  first  volunteered 
with  five  other  advocates,  to  defend  my  cause,  and  when  the 
Court  refused  to  permit  more  than  four  to  speak  on  each  side,  he 


ni 

received  a  fee  from  Mr.  Gardner.  With  my  publication  in  ©ne 
hand  and  Mr,  Thompson's  in  the  other,  I  defy  any  man  of  com- 
mon sense  and  ordinary  respectability  to  deny  it.  Mr.  Camp- 
bell himself,  with  all  his  fondness  for  prevarication,  has  not  de- 
nied it,  and  he  probably  never  will.  But  he  lias  done  what  is  equal- 
ly inconsistent  with  veracity  and  honesty,  he  has  endeavoured  to 
injure  me  by  quotinji;  an  adverse  verdict,  and  concealing;  its  most 
important  feature,  the  ovk  cent  oAMAGiis,  the  mention  of  which, 
he  knew  would  give  a  new  face  to  the  subject,  amJ  make  him  ap- 
pear a  contemptible  slanderer.  In  what  other  light  would  the 
community  view  me,  if  I  were  to  assail  Di.  Fishback's  charac- 
ter for  veracity  upon  the  ground  which  Mr.  Campbell  has  assum- 
ed against  me?  and  yet  I  myself  was  present  in  the  Nicholasville 
Court,  when,  "  By  the  laws  of  his  own  state,  and  by  a  jury  of 
his  own  country,''  Dr.  Fishback  was  amerced  in  one  cent  dam- 
ages, in  an  action  of  slander,  brought  by  Dr.  J.  R.  And  the 
jury  gave  the  same  reason  for  it,  that  is,  that  Dr.  Fishback  ought 
at  least,  to  pay  the  costs.  Yet  Mr.  Campbell  quoted  Dr.  Fish- 
back as  a  respectable  author,  on  those  subjects  on  which  he  pre- 
tended that  rny  credibility  was  destroyed  by  this  one  cent  verdict. 
But  circumstances  alter  cases.  I  am  a  Pedobaptist,  and  of 
course  full  of  moral  deformity ;  and  Dr.  Fishback  is  a  Pelagian 
Baptist,  just  now  sent  by  Mr.  Campbell  to  reform  the  Boston 
Unitarians.  When  a  Pedobaptist  of  Virginia,  procured  a  judicial 
decision,  for  fining  and  imprisoning  my  old  friend  Mr.  Lewis 
Craig,  Mr.  Campbell  quotes  it  in  both  his  debates,  as  a  proof  of 
the  persecuting  tendency  of  Pedobaptism.  To  this  he  will  pro- 
bably add  the  decision  in  Ohio,  against  those  who  pulled  down 
our  tent.  But  when  his  brother  Gardner,  a  Unitarian  Baptist, 
procures  a  verdict  of  one  cent  against  me,  for  telling  the  truth, 
and  for  preaching  the  Gospel  on  his  side  of  the  river,  this  is  no 
longer  persecution,  but  it  is  good  reason  why  my  own  Synod 
should  depose  and  excommunicate  me! 

You  will  pardon  me,  my  dear  Preceptor,  for  taxing  your  pa- 
tience so  largely  on  this  subject,  I  have  done  this,  because  si- 
lence on  my  part  would  give  his  libel  the  semblance  of  truth,  and 
would  be  esteemed  an  indirectacknowledgment  of  guilt.  I  have 
done  this  the  more  readily,  because,  as  far  as  my  recollection 
serves,  this  is  the  only  charge  against  my  moral  character,  which 
he  professes  to  support  by  any  tangible  evidence.  Well  would 
it  be  for  him,  if  only  one,  and  that  an  unsupported  charge  of 
falsehood  could'be  brought  against  him.  But  in  Nos.  13,  14,  and 
15,  of  these  collateral  papers,  you  will  find  many  such  faults 
stated  according  to  truth  and  evidence.  Yet  let  me  assure  you 
that  they  are  very  far  from  being  a  full  list  of  the  misstatements 
contained  in  his  book.  Open  the  volume  almost  any  where,  and 
you  will  see  errors  of  this  sort  on  both  pages.  Tiie  very  para- 
graph in  which  he  charges  me  with  libelling  a  neighboring  preach- 
er, is  headed  with  an  instance  which  has  not  been  mentioi  ed  in 
any  of  the  precedin  r  papers.  He  there  says,  '♦  Seventh  day, 
met  according  to  adjournment."    Now  it  is  a  notorious  fact,  that 


11® 

©n  the  seventh  day,  the  people  and  two  of  the  Moderators  and 
myself  had  to  wait  a  full  hour  after  the  time  to  which  we  had  ad- 
journed, before  Mr.  Campbell  and  his  Moderator  made  their  ap- 
pearance. As  our  President  was  to  leave  us  that  evening,  and 
as  there  was  much  important  matter  which  I  had  not  yet  touch- 
ed, and  which  I  should  be  compelled  to  abridge  at  any  rate,  I 
thought  that  Mr.  Campbell  took  a  very  ungenerous  advantage  in 
this  delay:  and  many  of  the  people  thought  this  an  additional 
evidence  that  he  was  heartily  sick  of  the  debate,  although  his 
general  health  might  be  improving.  If  I  recollect  rightly,  Mr. 
Lowry  made  such  an  observation  himself:  and  accordingly  when 
we  commenced  business,  he  sat  down  and  wrote  the  following  no- 
tice of  the  affaii',  as  it  is  now  before  me  in  his  own  Abstract. 
Viz:  "  Wednesday  morning.  7th  day  of  the  debate.  Campbell 
*'  came  an  hour  too  late.^^  This  may  serve  to  shew  the  compara- 
tive merit  of  Mr.  Campbell's  notes  and  those  of  Mr.  Lowry. 
Mr.  Lowry  endeavoured  to  state  things  as  they  really  passed; 
Mr.  Campbell  stated,  or  misstated,  or  concealed,  as  it  appeared 
most  likely  to  serve  his  interest.  It  is  for  this  reason  that  Mr. 
Lowry  has  declared  in  his  certificate  copied  in  the  Preface  to  this 
work,  that  he  "  can  unhesitatingly  say,  that  the  account  given 
is  essentially  incorrect  as  to  the  matter  and  manner  "  This  ha- 
bitual disregard  of  the  truth  is  one  feature  in  which  he  strongly 
resembles  his  spiritual  father,  Robinson,  and  his  spiritual  grand- 
father, who,  as  our  Saviour  informs  us,  was  a  teller  of  falsehoods 
from  the  beginning.  That  he  is  their  disciple,  Mr.  Greatrake 
has  fully  proved,  as  in  No.  16,  above. 

He  is  their  disciple  in  opposing  the  Christian  ministry.  On 
this  subject  Robinson  speaks  as  follows,  viz:  '*  After  the  de- 
*'  feat  of  that  numerous,  learned,  and  wealthy  church,  called 
*'  Catholick,  farther  attempts  to  prove  what  they  have  contend- 
*'  ed  for,  are  extremely  rash  and  entirely  hopeless,  and  go  on  a 
*'  principle  wholly  disallowed  in  pure  Christianity,  the  necessity 
**  of  a  standing  priesthood.  The  Apostle  Paul  gave  a  rule  to  the 
''Corinthians,  applicable  to  baptizing  as  well  as  to  preaching. 
*'  Ye  may  all  prophecy  one  by  one,  that  all  may  learn  and  all  may 
*'  he  cornforted.  And  the  right  of  every  Christian  to  enlarge  the 
*'  kingdom  of  Christ  by  teaching  and  baptizing  others,  is  perfect- 
•'ly  in  unison  with  the  whole  spirit  and  temper  of  Christianity. 
**  The  conduct  of  Jesus  was  uniform.  He  first  called  twelve, 
*' afterwards  seventy,  and  when  he  extended  his  commission  to 
**  the  whole  world,  he  appointed  above  five  hundred,  and  in  them 
"all  Christians  to  the  end  of  the  world  ;  nor  is  it  imaginable 
"'  that  he  uttered  any  prohibition  against  such  as  should  increase 
"■'  his  holy  empire  by  instruction  and  baptism:"*  Here  the  aboli- 
tion of  a  regular  ministry  is  made  to  rest  on  Christ's  ordination 
of  all  Christians  to  that  ofilce,  and  his  ordination  of  all  Chris- 
tians is  made  to  rest  on  Mr.  Robinson's  unscriptural  imagination: 
for  although  Christ,  by  his  Spirit,  has  uttered  many  prohibitions 

»Robirisoa's  History  of  Baptism,  American  Eiiition,  p.  54. 


113 

nation  of  five  hundred  men  and  of  all  Christians  in  them,  is  a 
mere  fiction  of  his  own  imagination.  There  is  no  more  proof 
that  Christ  conferred  ministerial  ordination  on  the  five  bundled 
witnesses  of  his  ascension,  and  on  all  Christians  in  them,  than 
that  our  last  General  Assembly  ordained  all  who  witnessed  their 
deliberations,  all  the  tnen,  women,  and  children,  and  all  their 
posterity  to  the  end  of  the  world.  Yet  baseless  and  hase  as 
this  anti -clerical  system  is,  Mr.  Campbell  is  i\ir.  Robin- 
son's humble  fidlower.  1  do  not  say  that  he  acts  consis- 
tently with  his  profession;  for  while  he  makes  war  upon  the 
ministerial  order  in  geneial,  he  is  instituting  a  new  clerical  col- 
lege of  his  own,  and  he  is  very  willing  to  spare  all  ot  the  old  or- 
der who  will  come  over  to  his  side.  He  denies  that  any  Chris- 
tian can  be  a  bish(»p,  while  he  is  a  Pedobaptist.  Yet  lie  calls 
Sydney  Rigdon  a  bishop,  because  he  belongs  to  Mr.  Campbell's 
new  corps  of  Baptist  Bishops.  Among  \\\e.  old  school,  Mr. 
Greatrake  is  no  bishop,  for  a  well  known  reason:  but  Mr.  Ver- 
deman  is  a  great  bishop,  for  a  reason  as  well  known.  Even  lit- 
tle Mr.  Vaughn  is  called  a  bishop,  because  he  falls  into  the 
ranks:  but  although  Mr.  Campbell  spoke  and  wrote  very  patheti- 
cally about  Mr.  Lewis  Craig,  he  did  not  call  him  a  bishop,  be- 
cause he  was  unable  to  learn  the  new  tactics.  After  the  old  gen- 
tleman had  been  imprisoned  for  (Christ's  sake,  more  than  half  a 
century  ago,  he  did  not  feel  willing  to  sell  his  master  now  for 
an  empty  name. 

Mr.  Campbell  is  also  a  disciple  of  Robinson  in  that  liberality 
which  is  indifferent  to  truth  and  holiness,  and  which  stigijiatizes 
as  inquisitors  all  who  exercise  ecclesiastical  discipline,  especial- 
ly when  they  are  aided  in  that  important  scriptural  duty  by  the 
use  of  a  public  creed.  On  this  subject  Mr.  Robinson  speaks  as 
follows,  viz:  '^  The  Baptist  churches  were  constituted  on  grounds 
*'just  and  liberal,  and  at  an  infinite  distance  from  the  foremen- 
"  tioned  principle  of  the  inquisition.  The  creeds  which  they 
*'  puolished,  therefore,  are  not  to  be  considered  as  a  publick 
*'  faith,  which  it  would  be  accounted  heresy  to  contradict;  but 
**  the  scripture,  and  the  scripture  interpreted  by  individuals, 
"was  the  true  and  real  foundation  of  their  first  churches.  It 
"must  be  allowed,  however,  that  they  have  not  all  acted  on  this 
*'  principle.  Most  ai-e  divided  into  two  principal  branches,  on 
"  the  speculative  points  of  grace  and  free  will;  the  particular 
*'  Baptists  holding  Arminianism  as  an  heresy,  and  the  General 
*'  Baptists  consit'ering  Calvinism  in  the  same  liglit,  and  neither 
"admitting  the  other  to  church  communion,  and  both  cousider- 
*'  ing  the  Socinian  Baptists  as  inadmissible  to  their  churches. 
*'  All  allow  separate  societies  to  judge  for  tiiemselves;  many  al- 
"  low  individuals  in  their  churches  to  dilfer,  except  on  funda- 
"  mental  articles  ;  and  some  have  no  fundamental  articles,  and 
*'only  require  a  person  to  profess  himself  a  believer  in  Christ; 
*'and  this  seems  to  be  the   only  true  ground  of  action.""      In 

''  Histoij  of  Baptism  V  p.  504. 


Hi 

this  passgea  Mr.  Robinson  opposes  creeds  as  illiberal,  and  in- 
quisitorial, because  they  are  apt  to  contain  fundamental  articles 
of  faith.  This  he  thinks  wrong,  because  it  so  often  excludes 
Socinians  from  the  church.  In  the  preceding  page  he  tells  us 
that,  at  the  Reformation,  Dudith  joined  the  Baptists,  "for  the 
"  sake  of  a  liberty  of  saying  what  he  would  on  every  subject." 
He  tells  us  that  "he  quitted  the  Lutheran  and  Calvinistic 
"  churches,  and  for  this  he  settled  in  that  of  the  Unitarians  in 
"  Poland,  where  in  the  enjoyment  of  this  precious  liberty,^he 
"  felt  a  happiness  which  he  had  never  known  before."  In  the 
following  page  he  celebrates  tlie  praises  of  another  Unitarian 
Baptist  of  the  same  period,  who  was  condemned  for  dissenting 
from  a  creed  which  recognizes  the  Son  as  co-essential  with  the 
Father.  This  was  the  identical  reason  for  which  the  Council  of 
Nice  condemned  Arius.  As  Mr.  Duncan  censures  the  latter,  so 
does  Mr.  Robinson  the  former,  and  for  the  same  reason.  Mr. 
Campbell  has  as  great  an  opposition  as  either  of  them,  to  creeds 
with  fundamental  ai'ticles,  tending  to  shut  out  Unitarians.  It 
is  a  little  amusing  to  read  the  note  which  Mr.  Benedict,  the  A- 
merican  Editor  of  Robinson,  has  appended  to  his  remai'k  about 
'*  no  I'undamental  articles."  He  says  "It  may  be  question- 
"  ed  whether  there  is  not  a  little  too  much  laxity  in  tins  ex- 
*'  pression."  I  think  he  might  as  well  have  questioned  whether 
there  was  not  a  little  too  much  laxity  in  the  bowels  of  Judas  and 
Arius,  when  they  gushed  out,  and  tne  guilty  wretches  expired. 

That  Mr.  Campbell  is  Mr.  Robinson's  humble  disciple  in  his 
opposition  to  creeds,  and  fundamental  articles  of  faith,  and  the 
exercise  of  church  discipline,  is  evident  to  those  who  are  conver- 
sant with  his  writings.  For  one  passage  to  this  purpose  I  would 
refer  you  to  the  close  of  No,  16  above.  Besides  a  contemptu- 
ous notice  of  creed-makers,  in  that  passage,  he  tells  us,  (as  is 
usual  with  those  who  snarl  at  creeds,)  what  sort  of  a  creed  he 
would  make.  He  tells  us  that  "the  belief  of  one  fact,  and  that 
"  upon  the  best  evidence  in  the  world,  is  all  that  is  requisite,  as 
"  far  as  faith  goes,  to  salvation."  "  The  one  fact  is,  that  Jesus 
"  the  Naza,rene  is  the  Messiah."  Compare  this  vv'ith  the  creed 
given  above  from  Mr.  Robinson  and  his  Unitarian  Baptists,  who 
"only  require  a  person  to  profess  himself  a  believer  in  Christ." 
"  This,"  says  he,  "  seems  to  be  the  only  true  ground  of  action:" 
That  is,  this  is  the  only  profession  requisite  to  baptism,  and,  of 
course,  to  admission  into  the  church.  To  the  same  amount  Mr. 
Campbell  says,  "  The  belief  of  this  one  fact,  and  subjection  to 
"  one  institution  [baptism]  expressive  of  it,  is  all  that  is  requir- 
"  ed  of  heaven  to  admission  into  the  church."  Here  then  we 
have  their  views  of  doctrine  and  discipline.  For  "  a  person  to 
"  profess  himself  a  believer"  in  "  the  one  fact''  "  that  Jesus  the 
Nazareneis  the  Messiah,"  and  to  receive  adult  baptism  by  im- 
mersion, is  all  that  is  necessary  to  entitle  am--  to  every  ecclesias- 
tical privilege,  even  to  the  right  of  prtach.ng  the  gospel  and 
baptizing  others.  These  terms  were  evidently  made  to  embrace 
all  Unitarian  Baptists,"  for  they  all  profess  to  believe  this  one 


115 

fact,  and  they  receive  adult  baptism  by  imraersion.  But  Mr. 
Greatrake  justly  shews  that  these  terms  of  communion  embrace 
devils  too,  for  they  profess  to  believe  this  one  fact,  and  those  of 
them  who  entered  the  herd  of  swine,  received  adult  immersion 
in  a  lake  which  is  formed  by  the  important  river  Jordan,  These 
then  must  be  members  of  Mr.  Robinson's  and  Mr.  Campbell's 
church.  To  be  consistent,  they  must  be  considered  duly  quali- 
fied ministers  of  religion,  and  be  called  bishops.  Mr.  Campbell 
has  frequently  tried  to  make  his  readers  laugh  at  our  Presbyte- 
ries, Synods  and  General  Assembly:  but  really  an  Ecclesiastical 
Association  of  his  packing  is  no  laughing  matter.  We  might 
find  Bishop  Beelzebub  in  the  chair,  with  Bishop  Chemosh  and 
Bishop  Catnpbell  at  the  table,  acting  as  clerks.  On  the  right 
hand  we  might  see  Bishop  Vaughn,  Verdeman  and  Mammon,  and 
on  the  left.  Bishops  Gartlnerand  Lucifer,  with  Bishops  Robinson, 
Rigdon  and  Dagon;  while  tiie  main  body  of  this  liberal  Association 
might  befcomposed  of  Simon  Magus  and  his  Gnostics,  Cerinthus 
and  theEbionitts,  the  Monophysites  of  the  East  and  the  Unitarians 
of  the  West.  This  is  the  sort  of  Company  in  Which  Mr.  Robin- 
son's worthy  Bishop  Dudith  "  felt  a  happiness  which  lie  had  never 
"known  before."  Here  he  had  '-a  liberty  of  saying  what  he 
would  [provided  it  is  false]  on  every  subject."  Who  would  not, 
with  him,  leave  "the  Lutheran  and  Calvinistic  churches,"  for 
"  the  enjoyment  of  this  precious  liberty?''  "Our  lips  are  our 
"  own;  who  is  Lord  over  us.?"  From  this  august  chuixh  Mr. 
Campbell  excludes  all  the  Pedobaptist,  creed-making  world,-  that 
is,  ihe  great  body  of  the  Christian  world:  and,  blessed  be  God, 
they  have  no  wish  for  a  seat  there.  May  you  and  I  be  faithful 
members  of  that  Church  which  has  publicly  refused  to  acknowl- 
edge Unitarian  Baptism ;  and  when  called  hence,  may  we  be 
at  liberty  to  sing  the  song  of  Moses  and  the  Lamb,  in  the  Gen- 
eral Assembly  of  the  Church  of  the  First  born  on  high — a 

song  in  which  no  Unitarian  ever  joined,  an  Assembly  in  wichno 
Unitarian  was  ever  found. 

Yours  sincerely  and  affectionately, 

W.  L.  M'CALLA. 

Philadelphia,  Oct.  19, 1826. 


No.  18. 
Mr.  CampbeWs  Literary  and  Polemical  Character. 

From  W.  L.  M'Calla  to  the  Rev.  John  T.  Edgar,  Maysville,  Kentucky. 

Beloved  Brother; 1  am  now  about  to  redeem  a  pledge 

which  you  probably  tiiought  that  I  had  forgotten.  You  were  ve- 
ry well  satisfied  that  I  had  encountered  Mr.  Campbell,  until 
your  mind  was  changed  a  few  months  afterward,  by  information 


116 

received  from  his  neigUhoarhood.  You  then  told  me  that,  from 
unanswerable  evidence,  his  character  was  too  low  to  justify  so 
formal  a  notice  by  any  respectable  man;  and  that,  in  defence  of 
my  own  character,  an  apology  should  be  made  to  the  public. 
This  I  promised  to  do.  Since  that  time,  your  information  has 
been  confirmed  by  many  direct  communications  to  myself,  from 
men  of  the  first  standing  in  his  part  of  the  world,  and  by  travel- 
lers through  that  country,  some  of  them  Baptists  and  some  Pe- 
dobaptists.  With  three  or  four  exceptions,  the  respectable  pai't  of 
society  appear  to  have  adopted  the  same  plan;  that  is,  to  let  him 
curse  on,  and  pay  no  attention  to  him.  Some  profess  to  avoid 
him,  as  a  well  dressed  gentleman  would  avoid  an  animal  in  our 
woods,  whose  formidable  missile  is  a  species  of  musk  not  general- 
ly relished  as  a  perfume.  Others  seem  to  avoid  him  from  a  con- 
scientious opposition  to  controversy.  They  think  it  wrong  for 
an  ecclesiastic  or  an  ecclesiastical  court  to  take  any  public  notice 
of  a  prevailing  heresy.  Their  plan  is  to  pray  it  down,  and  to 
live  it  down,  and  to  preach  it  down,  not  by  controversy,  but  by 
instruction.  This  is  the  plan  pursued  in  Massachusetts,  ever 
since  heresy  made  its  appearance  there.  The  consequence  is 
that  the  prayer  ot  faith,  holy  living,  and  instructive  preaching 
are  comparatively  scarce  articles  there  now.  These  things,  to- 
gether>  with  Confessions  of  Faith,  have  been  laid  aside,  as  savour- 
ing of  the  inquisition!  It  will  probably  be  admitted  that  the  in- 
spired Prophets  and  Apostles,  and  it  cannot  be  reasonably  deni- 
ed that  our  fathers  of  the  seventeenth  century,  in  England  and 
Scotland,  were  as  faithful  as  any  of  the  present  generation,  in 
praying,  living,  and  teaching  ;  yet  in  the  name  of  their  God,  they 
met  false  prophets  and  apostles,  heretics  and  heresies,  full  in  the 
face,  and  by  that  very  means,  promoted  wisdom,  piety  and  vigi- 
lance in  themselves  and  others.  The  clergy  of  this  City  have 
fairly  tried  both  experiments.  A  man  of  Mr.  Campbell's  reli- 
gious character,  but,  I  think,  his  inferior  in  education  and  tal- 
ents, talked,  pi'eached  and  printed  in  this  place,  until  he  built  an 
elegant  church  in  the  Northern  Liberties,  in  addition  to  a  fine  one 
which  he  already  occupied  near  the  Southern  confine  of  the  City. 
These  churches  were  crowded  to  overflowing,  and  proselytes 
multiplied,  wliile  the  clerg}  were  silent:  but  after  almost  every 
pulpit  in  the  city  had  resounded  for  months  with  the  refutation 
ef  every  prominent  feature  ot  his  abominable  system,  he  hastily 
emigrated  to  a  neighbouring  city,  the  clergy  of  which  are  trying 
silently  to  liA'^e  down  his  error,  while  he  is  building  a  new  church 
for  tlie  propagation  of  it. 

i  do  not  believe  "that  many  intelligent  Pedobaptists  are  sorry 
ihat  Dr.  Wall  defended  Christian  Baptism,  either  before  or  after 
the  assault  which  Mr.  Gale  made  upon  him.  And  notwithstand- 
ing the  contempt  which  is  thrown  upon  Mr.  Campbell  for  his  low 
cunning,  his  mean  duplicity,  as  well  as  his  audacious  effrontery, 
it  is  more  than  probable  that  in  these  respects,  as  well  as  his  lite- 
rary and  polemical  talents,  he  very  much  resembles  Mr.  Gale. 
That  the  latter  t(Jok  great  liberties  in  perverting  the  sense  and 


117 

altering  the  words  of  his  Antagonist  is  fully  shewn  by  Dr.  Wall 
in  his  Defence,  throughout.  One  glaring  instance  may  be  seen 
in  his  ninth  Chapter."  You  will  also  recognize  the  resemblance 
in  Dr.  Wall's  description  of  Mr.  Gale,  in  the  following  words, 
viz:  "  He  writes  in  a  style  indeed,  sufficiently  fluent,  and  with 
"  a  good  stock  of  philological  learning,  but  d<»es  not  keep  very 
•'  close  to  the  rules  of  candour,  modesty  or  truth,  but  delights  in 
"vaunting,  insulting,  slighting,  and  laying  odious  and  false  iin- 
"putations."  Their  resemblance  in  one  polemical  trick  is  very 
remarkable.  Mr.  Campbell  pronounced  almost  every  one  of  my 
arguments  a.pefifio  prindpii^  or  a  begging  of  the  question.  In 
page  303,  he  says,  "This  is  a.  petitio  principii,  a  begging  of  the 
"  question.  Let  this  first  be  proved.  But  it  cannot  "  With- 
out troubling  you  with  many  instances  of  this  declamatory  logic, 
[  will  point  you  to  one  which  embraces  every  other.  In  his  re- 
capitulation in  page  388,  he  says,  "  It  was  also  shewn  that  he 
"  [Mr.  M'Calla]  begged  every  question  connected  with  his  views 
"  of  Baptism."  From  this  you  may  see  that  Mr.  Campbell's  an- 
swer to  every  argument  was  to  pronounce  it  a  petitio  principii. 
In  this  he  closely  followed  Mr.  Gale,  as  will  appear  from  the  fol- 
lowing words  of  Dr.  Wall,  viz:  "  He  tells,  them  their  argument 
»'  for  infant  baptism,  from  seminal  holiness,  is  a  petilio  principii; 
"by  which  I  should  guess,"  says  the  Dr.,  "that  they  have 
"  said  something  beyond  his  reach  ;  for  that  is  the  common  name 
"  that  he  gives  to  all  arguments  that  he  cannot  answer." 

These  men  are  also  very  much  alike  in  their  bold  way  of  de- 
nying what  their  antagonists  have  said  and  done.  Although  Dr. 
Wall's  book  is  evidence  that  he  used  arguments  from  scripture, 
Mr.  Gale  denies  it:  so  although  I  triumphantly  refuted  Mr. 
Campbell's  arguments,  he  denies  that  I  noticed  them  at  all. 
"  Mark  it,"  says  he,  "  my  friends,  Mr.  M'Calla  has  not  replied 
"  to  one  of  them."  "  Having  also  advanced  sundry  arguments 
"  both  as  respects  the  subject  and  action  of  baptism,  which  he 
"has  not  so  much  as  ventured  to  impugn  "  ''You  will  have 
"  the  goodness  to  bear  in  mind  that  not  one  of  +liem  has  been  for- 
"  uially  impugned  by  Mr.  M'Calla."  "He  has  not  so  muck 
"as  yet  adverted  to  my  disquisition  on  the  words  in  contruver- 
*' sy."  "  Has  he  met  me  on  that  point  either?  N'l,  no.  In 
"  no  one  instance,  from  the  commencement  of  this  discussion, 
"  dare  he  encounter  me  on  any  definite  terms.  He  does  best  at 
"  a  great  distance.  He  keeps  oft'  at;  sea,  fearing  to  be  land 
"  bound"  Similar  expressions  are  found  even  in  his  recapitu- 
lation, where  he  says,  "  Thfcse  arguments  have  never  been  at- 
"  tacked  by  my  Opporient."  In  this  same  recapitulation  he 
also  says,  "  I  called  upon  Mr.  M'Calla  to  read  IVom  the  same 
"  volume,  rthe  New  Testament,]  his  authority  for  infant  bap- 
"tism,  but  be  could  find  nothing  to  read  an<l  withdrew  to  Rob- 
"inson."'=     Whether  it  be  true  that  I  "couldfind  nothing  to 

=■  See  p.  200  of  the  4th  London  Edition. 

<=  See  Debate  pp.  234,  255,  146,  301,  225,  388,  390, 


118 

"  read"  from  the  New  Testament  on  this  subject,  jou  and  thou- 
sands of  others  can  attest.  In  the  same  spirit  of  truth,  M  r.  Gale 
sajs  repeatedly  that  Dr.  Wall  "confesses"  that  "  infant  baptism 
cannot  be  found  in  scripture,"  and  that  "  infant  baptism  cannot 
be  maintained  but  by  the  traditions  of  the  Church."^ 

If  Mr.  Gale  was  deficient  in  modesty,  Mr.  Campbell's  opinion 
of  himself  in  comparison  of  others,  is  perhaps  as  immoderate. 
You  remember  that  Mr.  Walker  exposed  Mr.  Campbell's  re- 
port of  his  debate  Avith  him.  This  work  Mr.  Campbell  reviews. 
I  should  like  if  I  had  room  to  copy  the  last  paragraph.  Suffice 
it  to  say  that  in  the  bitterness  of  his  spleen  he  is  not  satisfied 
with  heaping  the  most  unqualified  abuse  upon  Mr.  Walker's 
book,  but  he  undertakes  to  contrast  it  with  his  own  transcendant 
performance  which  it  exposed.  He  calls  Mr.  Walker's  em- 
phatically a  little  treatise,  because  it  has  a  few  pages  less  than 
his  own,  and  an  ephemeral  production,  as  if  his  own  would  cer- 
tainly live  forever.  After  rating  it  as  vulgar,  malicious,  false, 
inaccurate  and  ungrammatical,  he  adds,  with  great  self-compla- 
cency, "  It  has,  however,  by  the  contrast  of  light  and  shade,  of 
•' good  and  evil,  which  everywhere  appear  in  the  natural  and 
"  moral  world,  been  the  happy  means  of  furnishing  a  new  evi- 
"  dence  of  the  excellency  of  truth  and  the  corruption  of  errorj 
"  by  giving  to  the  volume  which  it  attacks,  an  additional  splek- 
"  DOUR.'"'  That  his  volume  was  originally  splendid  is  here  taken 
for  granted:  Mr.  Walker's  answer  is  only  allowed  the  honor  of 
giving  it  an  additional  splendour,  by  the  contrast  of  light  and 
shade!!  '"Let  another  man  praise  thee,  and  not  thine  own  mouth; 
a  stranger,  and  not  thine  own  lips." 

The  Editor  of  the  Pittsburgh  Recorder,  after  travelling,  pub- 
lished a  journal  of  his  tour.  This  Mr.  Campbell  notices  in  the 
most  contemptuous  manner;  informing  the  public,  that  "the  most 
astonishing  and  interesting  incident  recorded"  in  it,  is,  that  the 
Editor  became  acquainted  with  an  old  Irish  Lady  who  left  one 
Presbyterian  body  to  jom  another.  Mr.  Campbell  also  is  an 
Editor;  and  in  the  same  volume  he  gives  us  an  account  of  his 
own  tour  to  Kentucky.  In  this  splendid  performance  he  gives 
us  more  astonishing  and  interesting  incidents  in  half  a  page  than 
his  neighbour  Editor  had  given  in  three  papers.  He  says,  "  I 
"have  come  home  richly  laden  with  intelligence  derived  from 
"  observation,  conversation  with  many  of  the  most  intelligent 
"  and  pious  teachers  of  the  Christian  religion,  and  from  reflexion 
*'  on  religious  men  and. things  of  our  own  times."  He  then  mo- 
destly hints  at  his  great  superiority  over  those  who  only  read 
geography  by  the  fire-side;  after  which  he  speaks  with  rapture, 
of  mountains  and  hills,  plains  and  deserts,  rivers  and  morasses, 
toils  and  perils,  battles  and  gibbets,  patience  and  perseverance, 

a  See  Wall's  Defence,  pp.  132, 133. 
i9  See  his  last  spurious  report,  p.  418. 


119 

meadows  and  fields,  fragrance  and  beauties,  until  the  dull  jour- 
nal of  the  Pittsburgh  Editor,  appears  fit  for  no  other  end  than  to 
give  additional  splendour  to  the  Buffalo  Editor's  velume,  by  the 
contrast  of  light  and  shade. 

You  and  I  have  the  honor  of  knowing  the  'weight  of  some  of 
those  most  intelligent  teachers  to  whom  he  refers,  and  we  have 
participated  in  the  amusement  occasioned  by  the  report  of  his  in- 
terviews with  them.  You  have  seen,  (in  fancy,  at  least,)  a 
man  of  education  and  information,  and  conscious  strength,  sit- 
ting in  a  circle  of  gazing,  gaping,  unlettered  admirers,  whom  he 
calls  bishops.  He  tells  them  that  he  was  acquainted  with  a  Scot- 
tish Laird;  Bishop  V.  who  sits  by  his  side,  moves  his  chair  an 
inch  back,  as  unworthy  to  sit  in  a  straight  line  with  such  a  man. 
He  then  observes  that  he  was  once  in  company  with  some  of  the 
Noblesse  of  France;  Bishop  V.  recedes  another  inch.  The  great 
man  farther  informs  them  that  he  had  conversed  with  members 
of  the  British  Parliament;  Bishop  V.  makes  another  move  in  the 
rear.  To  bring  this  "  most  astonishing  and  interesting"  inter- 
view to  a  climax,  the  man  of  splendour  then  electrifies  the  com- 
pany, by  informing  them  that  when  ship-wrecked  at  a  certain 
time,  he  was  reading  a  I^atin  treatise  on  Logic!  which,  to  men 
who  know  nothing  of  Latin  or  Logic,  must  have  been  as  captiva- 
ting as  his  declaration  on  the  stage,  that  he  had  read  all  the 
works  of  Aristotle  and  Plato  in  the  Original. 

But  Mr.  Campbell  denies  that  "  his  ruling  passion  is  the  love 
of  fame."  He  does  not  wish  you  to  think  that  he  covets  the  ad- 
miration of  fools.  According  to  his  own  account  he  is  one  of  the 
most  modest,  unassuming,  self-denied,  retiring  men,  that  the 
world  has  known.  Hear  his  own  words  in  reply  to  Mr.  Great- 
rake's  charge  of  vanity.  They  are  as  follows,  viz:  '*  A  person 
"  that  refused,  as  1  have  done,  offers  of  connexion  with  popular 
"  sects,  and  of  places  of  public  and  conspicuous  eminence  in  the 
"  cities  of  Philadelphia  and  New-York,  who  could  take  his  bible 
"  and  tlie  plough,  and  sit  down  among  the  hills  of  Western  Vir- 
"  ginia,  and  from  the  age  of  21  to  31,  move  in  the  quiet  vale  of 
"  retirement  without  seeking  in  one  instance  to  make  himself 
"more  conspicuous  than  his  immediate  duties  and  business  re- 
"  quired,  afiords,  we  conceive,  but  few  evidences  that  his  ruling 
"  passion  is  the  love  of  fame."  To  this  Mr.  Greatrake  rejoins, 
*'  Give  us  proper  testimony,  aye,  testimony,  '  for  the  belief 
*'  OF  THIS  ONE  FACT,'  that  you  have  had  those  overtures  from 
*'■  popular  sects,  and  offers  of  places  of /3M6/iC  and  conspicuous 
^^  eminence,  &c.,  and  when  you  doit,  though  not  a  miracle,  it 
"  will  be  a  wonder  of  first  rate  magnitude. "''  This  language  of 
Mr.  Greatrake  is  really  provoking;  and  is  calculated  to  drive  his 
Antagonist  to  greater  excesses  ot  boasting.  It  would  not  be  at 
all  surprising  if  Mr.  Campbell's  next  bulletin  should  announce 
to  a  wondering  world,  that  he  had  rejected  the  offer  of  a  peerage 

'  Miniature  Portrait,  p.  9. 


12U 

in  Scotland,  and  another  in  France;  and  that  he  had  refused  tlie 
offer  of  a  seat  in  the  British  Parliament:  preferring  a  retired  life, 
with  his  hammock  and  his  Latin  Logic,  ploughing  the  watery 
mountains  of  the  Atlantic,  in  search  of  a  sentimental  shipwreck. 

Mr.  Campbell's  literary  vanity  has  made  him  give  frequent 
hinfs  in  his  book,  that  his  reading  is  very  extensive  indeed.  In 
page  S6t),  he  says,  "■  We  have  searched  all  the  large  and  vol- 
"  uminous  histories  now  extant,  and  many  if  not  all  the  abbrevia- 
*'  ted  ones,  we  have  examined  all  the  writings  of  those  called  the 
*' Apostle's  successors,  both  orthodox  and  heterodox."  In  the 
close  of  his  b{»ok,  he  says,  "  Having  explored  all  the  systems  of 
*'  infant  baptism  hitherto  exhibited,  I  would  inform  the  public 
"that  unless  some  new  ground  is  taken,  I  will  promise  to  re- 
**  view  annually  all  the  new  works  published  on  this  question, 
*' and  sell  the  annual  review  for  twelve  and  a  half  cents."  Bap- 
tist controversialists  can  hardly  ever  forego  the  pleasure  of  ap- 
pearing learned,  even  if  they  should,  without  credit,  borrow  all 
their  materials  from  Pedobaptist  writers.  On  a  certain  text  Gale 
makes  a  pompous  display  of  interpreters  and  versions,  for  both 
of  which.  Dr.  Wall  says,  '*  One  may  plainly  trace  him  along 
•'Pool's  Synopsis."''  Mr.  Gale,  like  my  Opponent,  affected  a 
great  familiarity  with  the  Christian  Fathers.  In  one  of  these 
exhibitions,  he  refers  us  to  the  Greek  Original  of  Origen's  Homi- 
lies on  St.  Luke.  Dr.  Wall  had  the  trouble  of  ir  forming  him, 
that  the  work  to  which  he  referred  was  not  now  in  the  world  1^ 
Mr.  Campbell  has  fallen  into  precisely  the  same  error  with  re- 
gard to  the  minutes  of  the  Westminster  Assembly.  In  his  de- 
bate with  Mr.  Walker,  he  made  some  bold  and  untrue  assertions 
concerning  that  venerable  body,  and  nailed  them  by  a  reference 
to  their  written  proceedings,  in  the  following  words,  viz.  "See 
•'  the  minutes  of  the  Assembly,  met  at  Westminster,  A.  D.  16- 
43 ."''  These  minutes  perished  in  the  fire  of  London,  A.  D.  1666, 
so  that  Mr.  Campbell  tells  us  to  see  a  work  which  has  long  been 
invisible. 

If  spared  to  publish  my  argument,  I  hope  to  shew  one  unhappy 
refuge  of  this  gigantic  polemic,  which  will  be  apt  to  expose  the 
weakness  of  bis  cause  to  every  scholar.  It  is  his  resorting  to  the 
critical  principles  of  Home  Tooke,  to  defend  exclusive  immer- 
sion. I  should  be  glad  if  every  Baptist  writer  hereafter,  would 
honestly  own  that  their  cause  needs  such  a  preposterous  system  to 
support  it.  I  am  inclined  to  think  moreover,  that  inconsistency 
as  well  as  extravagance,  betrays  either  error  or  weakness  or 
both.  In  one  place  he  says,  that  Mr.  M'Calla's  "own  letters 
"  shew  that  he  was  competent."  In  another  place,  he  says  that 
Mr.  M'Calla's  speeches  are  "decisive  evidence  of  his  conscious 
"  incompetency. '"*  These  he  may  appear  to  reconcile;  but  there 
are  others  which  he  cannot.     While  he  was  trying  to  secure  the 


»  See  his  Defence,  p.  1«8.  *  Defence,  p,  326. 

•^  See  a  Note  in  p.  129.  •'  Debate,  pp.  10,  336. 


121 

negative  in  the  debate,  he  says,  "  In  every  controversy,  then, 
"  with  the  Pedobaptists,  upon  this  topic,  they  affirm  and  we  de- 
"  ny,  they  commence  and  we  respond."^  His  challenge  was  the 
ground  of  our  debate.  I  had  observed  that  the  proposition 
whicli  he  there  undertook  to  defend  was  an  affirmative  one.  But 
he  goes  on  to  give  arguments  "which,"  says  he,  "according 
*'  to  my  views,  will  force  the  proposition  into  the  form  of  a  di- 
*'rect  negative  in  the  discussion.'"'  In  other  places  he  says, 
"  Have  I  not  taken  an  affirmative  proposition.'^"  "  I  waspledg- 
*'  ed  to  affirm  and  he  to  deny."''  In  another  place  he  says  that 
his  opponent  "  necessarily  affirms,"  and  then  calls  upon  him  for 
the  proof,  because,  as  he  expressly  says,  "the  proof  lies  on  the 
"affirmer."'  He  then  goes  on  to  compare  infant  baptism  to  a 
house  made  of  ice,  which  he  wisely  tells  us  will  soon  melt  away. 
He  might  have  added  that  it  was  not  more  evanescent  than  that 
pitiable  sophistry  which  conjured  such  a  watery  phantom  a- 
gainst  a  permanent  institution  of  Heaven. 

After  Mr.  Campbell  had  accused  me  of  holding  a  controver- 
sy in  writing  and  not  viva  voce,  I  exhibited  my  notes  to  the  au- 
dience, telling  them  how  much  space  they  occupied.  This  he  has 
omitted  to  record!  but  he  has,  in  page  82,  recorded  a  similar  ex- 
hibition of  his  own  notes,  which  took  place  immediately  after, 
and  in  consequence  of  mine!  In  connexion  with  this,  he  has 
partially  recorded  in  the  same  paragraph  a  proposal  which  sets 
his  controversial  character  in  its  true  light.  He  urged  that  we 
should  both  give  up  our  papers  and  books,  and  let  the  rest  of  the 
debate  be  a  mere  logomachy :  or  as  he  expresses  it,  "  let  our  de- 
bate be  viva  uoce  as  it  was  proposed."  This  is  as  much  as  to 
say  that  it  could  not  be  viva  voce,  if  either  party  used  papers  or 
books,  and  that  these  were  therefore  excluded  by  our  original 
plan:  whereas  ^^  it  was  proposed,''^  by  himself,  in  his  8th  rule, 
m  No.  3,  above,  that  "  Whatever  books  are  produced  on  the 
*'  occasion  shall  be  equally  accessible  to  the  use  of  each  dispu- 
*'  tant."  He  brought  a  great  store  of  books  to  the  debate  with 
Mr.  Walker,  and  in  this  same  82d  page,  gives  the  "  stage  of  the 
»'  river''  as  a  reason  for  not  bringing  some  ponderous  volumes  to 
our  debate;  where,  however,  he  secured  by  stipulation,  the  use 
of  mine,  many  of  which  were  brought  for  him  by  request.  He 
even  came  to  the  stage  with  his  own  printed  controversy  in  his 
hand,  accompanied  with  a  greater  quantity  of  manuscript  paper 
than  I  had.  These  lawful  and  honorable  weapons  he  used  as 
well  as  he  could,  and  did  not  beg  his  Antagonist  to  throw  away 
his  sword, 

"  Till  at  advantage  ta'en,  his  brand 
Forced  Roderick's  weapon  from  his  hand, 
And  backwards  borne  upon  the  lee, 
Brought  tlie  proud  Chieftain  to  his  knee." 

In  Mr.  Campbell's  introd  ctory  address,  he  professes  to  be  ac- 
tuated by  generous  principles.     He  says,  "  I  trust  neither  Mr. 

»Debate  pp.  10,  386.  <=Debate  pp.  142,  lie. 

*Debatep.  23.  l!dDebate,p.55. 


122 

«  M'Calla  nor  myself  came  hither  for  the  purpose  of  displaying 
'  our  talents  or  our  acquisitions.  It  was  not,  we  assure  you,  my 
'friends,  for  the  purpose  of  exhibiting  our  strength,  or  the 
'  weakness  of  my  opponent,  that  induced  me  to  leave  my  family 
*  and  visit  this  place.  No  such  inglorious  object  could  have  in- 
'  duced  me  to  undergo  the  privations  and  toils  of  my  journey 
'hither."  ''  No,  my  friends,  it  is  not  our  own  reputation,  nor 
'sectarian  victory  we  have  in  view;  it  is  the  triumph  of  truth, 
'it  is  the  union  of  Christians  on  a  proper  basis."  Did  Mr. 
Campbell  find  after  a  few  hours'  discussion,  that  the  truth  vt'ould 
suffer,  by  his  "  few  hundred  references  to  the  original  scripturq^ 
*»and  a  few  extracts  from  ecclesiastical  history,  from  authors 
"which  I  [Mr.  Campbell]  could  not  bring  hither  owing  to  the 
stage  of  the  river.^"  No,  he  did  not  probably  think  that  much 
evil  would  attend  the  reading  of  his  texts,  but  he  was  willing  to 
give  them  up,  if  he  could  by  that  means  deprive  mc  of  minej 
especially  as  he  had  many  of  his  at  his  finger  ends,  and  I  could 
scarcely  repeat  five  verses  of  the  scriptures  accurately,  according 
to  his  account.  He  was  willing  also  to  give  up  his  extracts  from 
ecclesiastical  history,  because  by  writing  and  repeating  them  for 
years  together,  he  could  quote  them  by  memory^  whereas  with- 
out notes,  I  should  do  great  injustice  to  that  evidence,  which  he 
knows  is  against  him.  As  his  proposal  was  almost  if  not  quite 
in  the  form  of  a  demand,  I  referred  it  to  the  Moderators.  They 
decided  that  the  parties  had  a  right  to  use  books  and  papers  at 
discretion.  After  this  I  remarked  that  my  Opponent's  proposal 
reminded  me  of  a  similar  one  made  in  the  sixteenth  century. 
Martin  Luther  declared  that  in  a  debate  between  Eckius  and 
Carolstadt,  the  latter  had  greatly  the  advantage,  while  the  par- 
ties were  allowed  access  to  authorities  in  support  of  their  posi- 
tions; but  after  the  proposal  of  the  former  to  exclude  all  notes, 
papers  and  books  was  agreed  to,  the  flippancy  of  the  Pope's  Le- 
gate, a  practised  disputant,  produced  a  greater  effect.  For  my 
own  part,  1  observed,  that  as  I  did  not  undertake  this  discussion 
for  the  love  of  talking,  or  for  the  purpose  of  making  empty  asser- 
tions, but  of  defending  the  truth  by  good  evidence,  I  should  avail 
myself  of  such  preparations  and  such  authorities  as  were  within 
my  reach;  leaving  my  Opponent  to  enjoy  the  same  privilege, 
and  to  invalidate  my  proofs  if  he  could.  In  Mr.  Campbell's  88th 
page,  he  gives  a  new  turn  to  this,  evidently  for  the  purpose  of 
extracting  a  compliment  to  his  superior  abilities.  There  he 
makes  me  assert  a  historical  falsehood,  by  representing  Carol- 
stadt as  rejecting  the  proposal  of  Eckius,  on  account  of  the  su- 
perior experience  and  flippancy  of  the  latter;  whereas  notwith- 
standing these  advantages,  he  accepted  the  proposal.  He  then 
makes  me  reject  Mr.  Campbell's  proposal  for  the  same  reason; 
that  is,  because  1  dreaded  his  dexterity  and  volubility;  whereas 
my  reason  was  a  wish  to  prove  the  truth,  instead  of  waging  a  war 
of  words.  But  of  such  errors  as  this,  there  is  no  end  until  you 
get  to  the  end  of  his  book. 


123 

One  of  Mr.  Campbell's  controversial  arts  was  to  multiply 
challenges  indefinitely,  and  then  to  boast  that  every  defiance  en- 
titled him  to  a  triumph.  In  page  225,  he  has  three  of  these  and 
a  reference  to  many  more  in  the  compass  of  a  dozen  lines.  His 
manner  was  to  speak  witli  great  confidence  of  every  point,  and  to 
offer  to  rest  the  whole  controversy  on  it.  "-Let  Mr.  M'Calla''  says 
he,  "  meet  us  on  this  passage,  as  we  have  proposed  to  meet  him  on 
"  many  others;  we  wi!  I  rest  the  whole  controversy  on  this  point.  I 
*'  request  my  opponent  to  try  it.  I  will  rest  the  whole  weight  of  the 
*'conrruversy  upon  the  correctness  of  the  statement  I  have  made, 
"  upon  the  exposition  of  the  allegory  I  have  given. "  "I  will  pledge 

*'  MY  ERUDITION,   MY  CRITICAL  ACUMEN,    MY   RESPECTABILITY   AS 

**  A  SCHOLAR,  that  he  cannot,  upon  the  investigation  of  that  refer- 
*'  ence — Nay  I  will  rest  the  whole  controversy  upon  it.     If  he 
**  proves  this  one  point  we  shall  say  all  is  proved,  and  his  cause  is 
**  triumphant."^  He  knew  that  our  meeting  was  occasioned  by  his 
publishing  and  my  accepting  a  particular  challenge,  which  was 
then,  by  written  agreement,   the  subject  of  discussion.       He 
knew  also  that  this  challenge  embraced  several  important  topics, 
which  must  be  supported  or  oppugned  by  many  scriptural  authcH:- 
ities.     Notwithstanding  this,   he  would   sometimes  perch  upon 
some  outer  twig  of  some  inferior  branch  of  one  of  these  topics, 
an«i  fiercely  challenge  me  to  let  the  whole  controversy  turn  upon 
that  point.     Nay  he  would  sometimes  select  some  single  passage 
of  scripture  adduced  on  that  remote  point,  and  challenge  me  to 
make  that  the  subject  of  discussion,  to  the  exclusion  of  all  other 
topics,  arguments  and  authorities.     In  page  124,  he  says,  "  Let 
*'  hini^then  lay  aside  every  other  topic  and  open  this  chapter." 
Seeing  that  his  original  challenge  suffered  much  by  rough  hand- 
ling, he  often  endeavoured  to  draw  me  from  the  work  of  destruc- 
tion, by  challenging  me  to  meet  him  a  hundred  miles   off"  about 
some  minor  matter  not  effecting  the  main  topics;  as  a  partridge 
makes  a  great  fluttering  on  one  side  of  the  road  to   decoy  the 
traveller  from  her  nest  which  is  on  the  other  side.     In  page  218, 
after  requiring  me  to  rest  the  whole  controversy  on  one  point,  he 
expressly  tells  us  that  whatsoever  might  be  the  issue,   "  it  would 
"  not  affect  the  main  topics  of  discussion!"     Yet  because!  kept 
up  a  steady  fire  upon  his  original  positions,  and  paid  no  atten- 
tion to  his  decoys  and  distant  alarm  guns,  he  bravely  accuses  me 
of  unmanly  and  cowardly  conduct.     In  his  recapitulation,  page 
388,  he  says  '•  You  will  also  remember  that  in  every  instance 
**  when  1  invited  Mr.  M'Calla  to  the  discussion  of  any  particu- 
*'  lar  portion  of  scripture,  pledging  myself  to  rest  the  whole  con- 
"troversy  upon  it,  such  as,"  &.c.   &c.      "he  manfully  declined 
*' and  resolutely  refused  to  do  so  "     A  stranger  would  hardly 
suppose,  that  before  these  words  were  written  or  spoken,  I  had, 
as  far  as  the  time  would  allow,  noticed  particularly  and  success- 
fully almost  every  important  argument  and  text  adduced  by  Mr. 
Campbell  or  any  other  baptist  author.     It  is  probable  that  two  ex- 
ceptions could  not  be  produced,  although  my  time  was  so  limited. 
Yet  as  he  is  judge  and  jury,  accuser  and  witness,  he  seldom  gives 

»  See  Debate,  pp.  218,  250,  124. 


1£4 

me  credit  for  so  doing:  and  when, for  a  rarity,  he  does  admit  it,  he 
makes  me  as  in  pap;e  261,  rest  the  whole  controversy  on  it,  after 
his  fashion;  and  because  I  merely  contradicted  this  statement, 
without  consuming  time  with  useless  explanations  and  disputa- 
tions, he  bring,  me  in  more  guilty  than  if  I  had  not  noticed  the 
point  at  alK     Thus  he  wraps  it  up. 

What  Dr.  Wall  says  of  Mr.  Gale's  eloquence,  maybe  said  of 
Mr.  Campbell's.  "  His  talent  in  rhetoric,  (which  is  not  incon- 
^'  siderable)  he  uses  to  false  colouring  and  gaining  his  point  (as 
"  he  calls  it)  by  wrested  representations  of  things  and  passa- 
"  ges.'""  He  is  a  considerable  wit.  One  effect  of  this  was,  that 
in  proportion  to  his  ambition  to  excite  laughter,  so  was  his  mor- 
tification when  the  laugh  was  turned  against  himself.  When  he 
was  prostrate,  I  endeavoured  to  lead  the  audience  into  a  serious 
frame.  This  was  done  to  spare  his  feelings  and  to  promote  the 
general  edification.  For  this  favour  he  rewards  me  by  putting 
foolish  words  into  my  mouth,  and  by  pretending  as  in  the  last 
page  quoted  above,  that  the  risibility  which  I  endeavoured  to  re- 
press, was  not  at  his  expense,  but  was  excited  by  "a  canting 
tone  and  a  sorrowful  countenance"  which  he  there  indirectly  at- 
tributes to  me.  But  these  very  expressions  are  a  great  softening 
of  the  real  words  which  he  used  in  the  debate.  Instead  of  "  a 
canting  tone  and  a  sorrowful  countenance''  as  in  the  report,  his 
real  expressions  were,  "  long  faces,  dirty  Pharisaical  faces,  sanc- 
tified sighs,  pious  sobs,  and  holy  groans. "  His  thus  altering  his 
own  words,  is  a  proof  that  his  conscience  and  taste  are  not  yet 
jjerfectly  insensible  to  the  ugliness  and  the  odiousness  of  vulgari- 
ty, profanity,  and  scurrility.  That  these  expressions  were  the 
ebullition  of  spleen  and  mortification  was  as  evident,  as  that  he 
was  afterward  moved  by  his  hatred  against  missions,  to  censure 
the  London  Society  and  the  Editors  of  the  New-York  Observer 
for  relating  certain  "  transactions,  without  a  comment  and  with 

out  A    GROAN." 

What  easy  and  astonishing  success  attended  Mr.  Campbell's 
labours  in  the  debate,  if  we  listen  to  his  own  account!  One 
would  suppose  that  he  had  nothing  to  do  but  to  attend  the  funer- 
al obsequies  of  his  Antagonist.  He  tells  the  audience  that  "Mr. 
♦'M'Calla,  theologically  considered,  is  digging  his  own  grave. 
"  He  is,  in  fact,  about  to  defeat  his  own  cause,  and  to  subvert  his 
"  own  theses."  "  He  has  not  only  killed,  but  buried  himself." 
"He  was  digging  a  pit  for  his  own  interment.''  "We  have 
"seen  he  is  theologically  dead  and  buried."  "  But  recollect 
"  my  friends,  he  has  not  made  one  struggle  to  get  out  of  the  pit 
"  into  which  he  has  fallen.  He  is  buried  under  the  ruins  of  one 
"of  his  bulwarks.'"  Mr.  Campbell  is  not  satisfied  with  the 
death  and  burial  of  an  individual,  but  every  "hireling  priest,'' 

i>  See  Defence,  p.  47. 

<=  See  Debate,  p.  p.  133,  134,  194,  195,  203. 


125 

(as  he  politely  calls  Dr.  Mason  and  his  adherents,  in  page  207,) 
is  consigned  to  the  tomb  with  me;  and  in  page  293,  he  pronoun- 
ces over  us  a  pompous  funeral  oration,  in  which,  with  his  usual 
regard  to  truth,  he  says,  that  his  Antagonist  "  has  examined 
"  the  annals  of  the  world  for  fifteen  hundred  years,  and  has  not 
"  found  a  syllable  about  infant  baptism!"  Bat  this  is  only  one 
out  of  fifteen  hundred  such  statements,  several  of  which  you  in- 
form me  he  has  published  against  you. 

Your  letter  moreover  says,  "  unless  you  soon  publish  your  de- 
''bate  with  Campbell,  his  friends  in  this  country  will  say  that 
"  you  are  conquered  "  This  is  a  temporary  disadvantage  to 
which  I  desire  patiently  to  submit;  especially  as  it  is  firmly  be- 
lieved that  the  truths  which  1  advocate,  have,  by  Divne  assis- 
tance, obtained  a  real  victory,  and  shall,  by  the  same  assistance, 
secure  a  permanent  triumph.  The  hast} ,  crude,  partial  and  spu- 
rious publications  of  my 'Baptist  and  Universalist  Antagonists 
were  designed,  in  a  great  measure,  to  make  money:  and  if  I 
were  such  a  hireling  as  they  are,  I  should  have  adopted  their 
measures.  Thej^  are  calculated  to  give  a  momentary  lift  to  their 
cause,  but  ultimately  to  destroy  it.  When  the  public  has  fully 
and  fairly  heard  both  parties,  may  vve  not  hope  that  the  truth 
will  triumph  in  the  press,  as  it  did  on  the  stage.  When  they 
compare  my  work  with  Mr.  Campbell's  I  am  not  afraid  of  their 
decision  on  the  merits  of  the  cause,  or  on  the  weight  of  argu- 
ment. His  unanswered  publication  gives  a  partial  and  mo- 
mentary turn  to  the  popular  voice:  but  if  he  had  remained  silent 
like  myself,  or  if  my  argument  could  have  been  published  with 
hisj  this  effect  woulcl  not  have  been  known. 

It  is  natural  that  the  parties  and  their  friends  should  be  alive  to 
the  immediate  ett'ects  produced  upon  the  community  by  their  oral 
controversy.  Each  is  willing  to  think  that  the  public  voice  assigns 
to  him  the  palm  of  victory.  This  is  a  subject  which  admits  of 
something  more  tangible  than  declamation.  Mr.  Campbell  him- 
self concedes  that  an  unaccountable  anxiety  to  bring  a  debate 
to  a  close,  is  an  evidence  that  the  party,  thus  solicitous,  feels 
that  he  is  losing  ground.  For  this  reason  he  represents  Mr. 
Walker  as  requesting  his  Moderator  to  curtail  the  debate  of  the 
last  day.*  The  Moderator  afterward  published  a  denial  of  the 
fact,  and  very  correctly  observed  that,  "  the  statement  is  obvi- 
*'  ously  intended  to  bias  the  public  with  the  apprehension  that 
"  Mr.  Walker  was  exhausted  or  tired  with  his  part  of  the  con- 
*'  troversy.'"'  In  my  case,  it  is  quite  unnecessary  to  manufac- 
ture instances  in  which  my  Opponent  "  was  exhausted  or  tired 
with  his  part  of  the  controversy."  As  he  came  to  the  ground 
determined  to  conquer  in  three  hours,  or  a  day  at  most,  he  soon 
became  impatient  of  delay.  Accordingly,  on  the  second  day  he 
proclaimed  himself  victor,  and  pronounced  the  debate  at  an  end. 

»  See  Debate  with  Mr.  W.  p.  121. 

^  See  Mr.  Walker's  Reply,  p.  242.  , 


126 

Ji'inding;  me  still  under  weigh,  he  appealed  to  the  bench  to  en- 
force his  pi  uclamation,  by  controlling  my  course.  Being  disap- 
pointed here  also,  he  plead  sickness" as  a  reason  for  a  premature 
adjournment,  //is  Moderator  backed  this  request  by  a  mourn- 
ful complaint  that  his  seat  had  been  very  hard  to  iiim  that  dav. 
Although  the  sympathy  between  the  Moderator's  seat  and  his 
champion's  stomach  was  invisible,  yet  it  was  not  inexplicable  to 
a  part  of  the  audience,  to  whom  it  occasioned  no  little  merri- 
ment. It  was  at  this  time  that  Col.  Morris  proposed  to  me  the 
question  about  the  gesture  of  an  exhausted  race-horse.  If  I  had 
complained,  it  would  have  been  nothing  unreasonable,  because  I 
was  really  sick,  and  was  getting  worse  every  day;  vvhereas,  in 
his  preface,  he  asserts  "  the  improvement  of"  his  "  health  dur- 
ing the  seven  days  of  the  discussion."  Notwithstanding  this,  he 
manifested  to  the  close,  as  great  a  solicitude  to  terminate  the  dis- 
cussion as  I  did  to  continue  it.  Here  then  you  have  an  instance 
of  a  xnan  who  is  daily  improving  in  health,  and  yet  using  every 
art  to  escape  from  the  grasp  of  another,  who  resolutely  maintains 
his  hold,  though  daily  declining  in  health.  His  appearing  on  the 
last  day,  an  hour  too  late,  and  then  carefully  assuring  the  pub- 
lic that  he  had  come  according  to  adjournment,  indicates  an  ex- 
haustion which  he  would  conceal  at  the  expense  of  truth.  Late 
as  it  was  when  he  came,  he  insisted  that  we  should  read  our  vo- 
luminous correspondence,  which  a  few  days  before,  he  had  refus- 
ed to' read,  when  I  requested  it  as  a  means  of  exposing  his  false 
statements  concerning  it. 

The  opposition  of  Mr.  Walker's  Moderator  to  the  reading  of 
Kobinson  was  construed  into  evidence  of  fear  and  defeat:  Yet 
Mr,  Campbell's  Moderator  opposed  the  reading  of  the  same 
book  by  me,  because  I  turned  it  against  him.  Mr.  Walker's 
sneer  at  Mr.  Campbell's  load  of  books  was  construed  into  a 
*'  panic;"  and  although  Mr.  Campbell  declared  his  intention  of 
bringing  many  of  them  to  our  debate,  and  actually  did  appear 
with  pompous  preparations  in  manuscript  and  in  print,  yet  he 
himself  was  at  last  reduced  to  the  necessity  of  sneering  at  my 
notes  and  books,  and  of  making  a  formal  proposal  that  we  should 
give  them  up:  and  when  he  failed  in  this,  every  shot  from  the 
Pedobaptist  battery  marked  its  effect  by  the  groans  and  com- 
plaints which  it  elicited  against  the  "  little  book.'' 

Except  a  few  instances  in  which  I  stopped  to  chastise  his  irre- 
levant wit,  (merely  intended  to  annoy,)  I  endeavoured  in  every 
speech,  to  make  all  practicable  progress  in  a  regular  chain  of  ar- 
gument. When  he  had  exhausted  argument  and  sarcasm,  he 
spent  hours,  if  not  days,  in  irrelative  essays,  intended  to  pervert 
such  precious  graces  as  faith,  hope,  and  charity;  and  to  prove 
that  it  is  from  ignorance  and  wickedness  that  people  pray  "thy 
kingdom  come;"  and  to  shew  that  people  ought  to  be  permitted 
to  drive  waggons  and  herds  of  hogs  on  the  Sabbath  day;  and  a 
variety  of  such  matters  equally  connected  with  baptism.  This 
son  of  Kish,  this  Gadarene;  who  loved  cattle  and  hogs  better 


X         lie? 

than  obedience  to  the  laws  of  God  and  man,  uttered  and  repeat- 
ed some  ot  these  loathsome  essays  on  the  last  day;  at  which  time 
he  published  another  challenge  accompanied  with  new  restric- 
tions, the  necessity  of  which  he  said  he  had  learned  '•'•from  ex- 
perienceP^  and  lest  we  should  not  know  where  his  experience 
was  obtained,  he  expressly  told  the  audience  that  these  restric- 
tions were  intended  to  prevent  intrusion  from  such  men  as  my- 
self! This  is  precisely  the  way  in  which  my  Universalist  An- 
tagonist secured  himself  from  future  danger.  For  men  to  talk 
and  act  thus,  and  yet  boast  of  a  victory,  is  preposterous  indeed. 

As  an  evidence  of  his  final  success,  and  of  my  defeat,  he  rep- 
resents me  as  trying  to  obtain  an  assurance  from  the  Moderators 
that  he  would  not  be  permitted  to  leply  to  my  last  speech.  If 
this  were  true,  it  would  be  proof  of  my  conscious  weakness,  as 
our  rules  gave  to  each  the  right  of  speaking  until  satisfied.  Bat 
if  it  be  a  fact,  as  the  Moderators  and  audience  know  it  is,  that  I 
did  not  endeavour  to  deprive  him  of  this  stipulated  privilege,  but 
that  he  endeavoured  to  deprive  me  of  it,  then  the  evidence  of  de- 
feat is  on  the  other  side.  Moreover,  when  the  President  an- 
nounced his  intention  of  remaining,  if  we  chose,  for  three  days 
longer,  contrary  to  his  former  determination,  and  when  I  warm- 
ly expressed  my  gratitude  for  such  kindness,  such  was  Mr. 
Campbell's  terror  at  the  apprehersion  of  protracting  the  debate, 
that  he  made  one  foolish  sentence  answer  for  his  last  speech. 

Among  those  witnesses  which  Mr.  Campbell  cites  for  the  cor- 
rectness of  his  report,  there  is  one  class  of  persons,  who,  as  far 
as  I  can  learn,  have  no  existence  whatever,  except  on  the  12th 
page  of  his  preface.  They  are  "those  who  were  on  the  other 
♦'  side  [from  him]  when  the  debate  commenced,  but  who  were 
*'  convinced  by  hearing  it,  that  infant  sprinkling  is  a  human  tra- 
"dition."  If  you  will  examine  the  whole  sentence,  you  will 
find  reason  to  conclude  that  he  never  heard  of  such  persons  him- 
self: for  along  with  those  witnesses  whose  testimony  he  profess- 
es to  *'  know"  will  be  in  favour  of  his  book,  we  find  "  every 
umpire  that  heard  the  discussion."  Now  you  know  very  well 
that  the  testimony  of  two  out  of  the  three  umpires  is  wanting  to 
that  end,  and  one  of  them  has  publicly  condemned  his  book  as 
an  abominable  impostuie.  A  man  who  can  indulge  in  such  wild 
insinuations  and  eroneous  assertions  cannot  be  reasonable  trusted. 
Althoui»;h  his  spurious  debate  may  have  led  many  weak  people  a- 
stray,  I  do  not  believe  that  he  has  ever  heard  of  one  person  who 
was  proselyted  to  his  cause  by  hearing  the  real  debate.  Yet  I 
have  heard  things  which  would  delight  his  heart  if  they  were  as 
much  in  his  favour  as  they  are  in  mine.  One  of  the  most  emi- 
nent elders  in  the  bounds  of  the  Kentucky  Synod,  and  a  per- 
sonal friend  of  yours,  informed  me  in  this  house,  that  a  discourse 
delivered  in  Washington,  before  the  debate,  by  your  humble  ser- 
vant, in  answer  to  Mr,  V.'s  sermon  on  baptism,  was  the  means 
in  the  hand  of  God,  of  convincing  him  that  our  baptism  was 
Christian  baptism:  whereas  Mr.  V.'s  misrepresentations,  if  un- 


1£8 

refuted  would  have  taken  him  away.  This  is  the  discourse  to 
which,  during  the  debate,  Mr.  Campbell  referred,  as  being  de- 
livered with  so  bad  a  spirit.  On  this  subject  also,  you  are  ac- 
quainted with  an  interesting  fact.  You  know  that  an  intelli- 
gent man  who  was  then  and  is  yet,  a  Baptist  from  principle,  did, 
imraediately  after  the  sermon  was  delivered,  shew  me  unequiv- 
ocal marks  of  affectionate  regard,  among  which  a  present  of 
twejity  dollars  was  one. 

On  the  question,  who  had  the  weight  of  argument  in  the  de- 
bate? you  will  probably  agree  with  me,  that  among  friends  and 
foes,  there  was,  in  general,  but  one  opinion.  A  citizen  of  Au- 
gusta who  was  an  enemy  of  mine  rode  in  company  vvith  a  citi- 
zen of  Washington  who  was  unfriendly  to  me.  The  Washing- 
tonian  answered  all  his  enquiries  concerning  the  debate,  and  told 
him  that  my  deportment  on  that  occasion  had  made  him  my 
friend.  My  stern  Augusta  neighbour  came  home  and  told  his 
friends  that  he  was  glad  that  Campbell  had  been  severe  with 
M  'Calla,  for  he  deserved  it;  but  he  was  nevertheless  pleased 
that  a  man  who  had  travelled  so  far  to  whip  a  Kentuckian,  should 
go  home  with  a  good  beating.  Another  citizen  of  Augusta  (since 
removed)  who  inclined  to  the  Baptist  views,  declared  to  me  in  a 
letter  which  is  now  before  me  that  I  gained  a  decided  victory, 
and  that  the  debate  convinced  him  that  Mr.  Campbell  was  wrong. 
Another  who  had  some  dislike  to  me  because  his  acquaintances 
were  almost  all  Baptists  aiid  their  adherents,  visited  Washing- 
ton and  Maysville  shortly  after  the  debate,  and  being  asked  on 
his  return,  what  the  people  in  those  places  said  upon  the  subject, 
he  had  to  answer  candidly  that  they  considered  Mr.  Campbell 
beaten,  his  occasioned  Dr.  K.  to  insult  him  before  the  com- 
pany. A  citizen  of  Ohio,  near  Augusta,  declared  that  in  his 
presence,  very  prejudiced  members  of  rigid  Baptist  families  near 
W^ashington  confessed  that  I  had  the  advantage.  Another  fact 
you  are  probably  acquainted  with.  A  niece  of  a  Bapti&t  preach- 
er had  for  years  advocated  the  Baptist  cause.  Her  uncommon 
intelligence  is  the  object  of  general  admiration.  In  the  debate 
she  sided  with  Mr.  Campbell,  until  the  argument  on  household 
baptism  convinced  her.     This  she  said  was  irresistable. 

The  impression  which  the  debate  made  upon  the  temper  of  the 
parties  speaks  loudly  on  this  subject.  When  the  discussion 
closed,  the  countenances  and  behaviour  of  the  parties  presented 
a  strong  contrast.  Happy  good  humour  enlightened  the  one, 
and  surly  displeasure  beclouded  the  other.  In  some  cases  the 
Baptists  refused  to  shake  hands  with  the  other  party.  A  few 
days  afterward  one  of  them  told  an  elder  of  my  Church  that  his 
champion  had  beaten  me.  "  Well"  answered  the  elder,  "  there 
*'  is  one  strange  thing  about  that  matter,  that  I  should  like  to 
«'  hear  you  account  for.  It  is  this;  you  say  that  we  are  conquer- 
*' ed;  yet  we  bear  it  with  great  good  humour:  and  you  say  that 
*'  you  are  the  victors;  yet  you  are  all  angry  about  it.  I  thought 
"  that  the  conquerors  were  generally  pleased,  and  the  vanquish- 


129 

"ed  enraged. "  Whether  therefore  we  look  at  the  conduct  of  Mr. 
Campbell  or  of  his  folh  wers,  during  tlie  discussion  or  after  it, 
there  is  an  air  of  dissatisfaction  and  disappointment  which  looks 
very  unlike  that  ascendency  which  he  claims.  He  was  not  sat- 
isBed  with  the  subject  of  the  debate,  although  it  was  his  own 
challenge;  but  was  always  challenging  me  to  discuss  something 

else; He  was  not  satisfied  with  the  time  occupied  in  the 

debate,  but  was  constantly  trying  to  bring  it  to  a  close; He 

was  not  satisfied  with  the  regulations  of  the  Bench,  because  they 
gave  me  as  well  as  himself,  the  r.ght  of  taking  my  own  course; 
He  was  not  satisfied  with  the  use  of  books  and  notes,  because, 
through  divine  help,  they  enabled  me  to  lay  before  the  audience 
a  mass  of  irrefutable  evidence,  instead  of  irrelevant  harangues, 
vain  boastings,  mournful  complaints,  and  empty  triumphs.  To- 
ward the  close  he  became  dissatisfied  not  only  with  the  subject, 
but  with  the  very  form  of  his  original  challenge,  because,  like 
my  Universalist  neighbour,  he  had  learned  from  experience,  that 
it  was  wiser  to  guard  against  the  intrusion  of  such  a,  person  as  he 
was  then  contending  with.  While  his  people  participated  in  his 
discontented  and  angry  feelings,  the  Pedobaptists  and  myself  be- 
canie  quite  in  a  good  humour,  with  every  thing.  We  were  even 
pleased  with  the  challenge,  at  last,  notwithstanding  "  its  confu- 
sion of  points  and  vulgarity  of  expression."  We  were  pleased 
with  the  time  occupied,  and  would  rather  have  wished  it  longer 
than  shorter.  We  were  pleased  with  the  decisions  of  the  bench, 
because  they  were  fair,  equal  and  honorable.  We  were  pleased 
with  the  use  of  notes  and  books,  because,  through  divine  good- 
ness, evidence,  without  declamation,  gave  triumph  to  the  truth. 
We  were  even  pleased  with  our  Antagonist,  because  as  far  as  our 
knowledge  extends,  he  is  the  most  powerful  champion  of  Ana- 
baptism  in  America,  if  not  in  the  world. 

I  still  remember  with  delight,  my  dear  brother  the  many  hap- 
p}-  hours  which  we  have  spent  in  sitting  and  riding,  preaching 
and  praying  together.  I  still  remember  your  tender  attention  to 
me  in  sickness.  May  that  love  which  has  been  formed  on  earth 
be  continued  in  heaven.  Remember  me  affectionately  to  your 
little  Theological  Seminary'  and  their  pious  mother. 

Yours  in  Christ, 

W.  L.  M'CALLA. 

Philadelphia,  Nov.  1,  1826. 


No.  19. 

Neio  Report  of  a  Debate  on  Baptism. 

The  following  report  is  intended  to  embody  a  syllabus  of  my 
■whole  argument  on  Baptism,  in  connexion  with  such  of  Mr. 
Campbell's  matter  as  it  was  right  that  1  should  publish,  and  yet 

a  Two  of  his  sons  are  called  Archibald  Alexander  and  Samuel  Miller. 

s 


130 

such  as,  in  many  cases  I  could  not  put  anj  where  else.  It  is 
also  intended  to  shew  how  much  better  it  is  tor  euch  to  publish 
for  himself,  than  one  for  both.  It  is  not  given  as  an  exact  report 
ot  my  conference  with  Mr.  Campbell,  though  it  mi^ht  claim 
this  character  more  justly  than  Mr.  Campbell's  book.  As  it  pro- 
fesses, like  his  work,  to  be  written  by  the  Baptist  controversial- 
ist, the  names  of  the  parties  and  of  the  author  shall  be  fictitious, 
and  sliall  be  taken  from  their  denominations.  As  my  argument 
consisted  of  seven  topics  and  we  occupied  seven  days,  I  shall 
make  the  topics  and  the  days  to  coincide.  I  shall  not  pi-etend 
to  give  the  real  number  of  our  speeches,  nor  shall  those  which 
are  noticed  be  given  in  their  exact  order.  Like  Mr.  Campbell  I 
shall  take  the  liberty  of  giving  as  many  sums,  specimens,  ab- 
stracts and  miniatures  as  convenience  may  require,  without  ad- 
hering strictly  in  all  such  cases  to  the  exact  sentiments.  Like  him 
also  I  shall  make  some  transposicions  and  suppressions.  But  I 
shall  not  like  him,  forge  for  my  antagonist  my  own  peculiari- 
ties, nor  help  him  out  with  supplements  and  interpolations.  I 
shall  not  publish  in  his  name,  extracts  from  authors  which  he 
never  saw,  nor  give  him  words  and  sentiments  which  he  never 
uttered.  In  his  speeches  I  shall  give  his  own  words  as  they  are 
found  in  his  book,  once  iu  the  preface,  twice  or  three  times  in  the 
correspondence,  and  the  rest  in  the  debate.  I  proceed  to  give, 
first,  the  title  page,  then  the  dedication,  and  lastly  the  debate. 


TITLE  PAGE. 

A  Debate  on  Baptism  between  an  Anabaptist  and  a  Pedobap- 
tist,  in  consequence  of  a  general  cliallenge  published  by  the  for- 
mer and  accepted  by  the  latter.  "  All  the  arguments  on  both 
"sides  shall  be  faithfully  and  impartially  detailed,  and  all  the 
*' evidence  adduced  on  the  occasion,  shewing  on  which  side  the 
'*  truth  lies  on  this  long  contested  subject,  shall  be  as  fully  ex- 
"  hibited  as  the  nature  of  the  case  will  permit."*  The  whole 
being  snugly  squeezed  into  a  certain  number  of  pages  fixed  up- 
on in  a  printed  Prospectus,  circulated  before  the  debate  began, 
and  while  the  Author  expected  that  the  discussion  would  occu- 
py three  hours  instead  of  seven  days.  Written  by  the  Ana- 
baptist and  attested  by  Sidney  Sapscull.  "  I  could  make  a  boj 
of  sixteen  dispute  with  the  Lord  Archbishop  of  Canterbury.'' 
Campbell.  "Caesar  aut  nihil."  Greatrake  for  Campbell. 
Copy  right  secured,  not  for  filthy  lucre's  sake,  but  from  the  most 
disinterested  philanthropy.  "  After  the  present  impression  [of 
*'  6000  copies]  is  sold  [for  g6000]  we  will  [Generously]  give 
''the  right  of  publication  to  any  applicants,  ^^alo  maybe  dispos- 
"  ed  to  republish  in  any  distant  part  of  the  Union,  for  a  very 
"  small  consideration:""  say  §1000,  as  I  am  no  hireling  priest. 

"Campbell's  Prospectus  printed  and  circulated  before  the  Debate. 
•"Mr.  Campbell's  advertisement  t<iilowin5  his  copy-ri^ht. 


131 

DEDICATION. 

This  work  is  not  dedicated  to  my  neighbours  at  whose  expense 
1  was  brought  to  this  country;  because  1  have  been  abusing  young 
beneficiaries  and  their  benevolent  supporters  ever  since.  Nor 
is  it  dedicated  to  the  Legislature  of  the  State  in  which  the  de- 
bate occurred,  because  after  my  third  sermon,  (for  I  had  three 
sermons  that  1  preached  almost  every  where,  and  the  last  of  them 
was  against  preachers  and  sermons  and  all  such  things;) Af- 
ter my  third  sermon,  I  say,  the  Legislature  quit  me,  to  follow  Dr. 
B.  who  exposed  me.  I  shall  not  therefore  dedicate  it  to  them, 
but  the  state  in  general,  on  account  of  the  extreme  salubrity  of 
its  air,  which  caused  my  health  to  increase  during  seven  days 
of  hard  fighting,  except  on  the  2nd  day,  when  the  refusal  of  the 
Moderators  to  handcuff  my  Antagonist  made  me  considerably 
dyspeptic,  and  made  the  seat  of  Bishop  Tricentiman  uncomfor- 
tably hard,  for  which  reasons  there  was  a  premature  adjourn- 
ment. 


DEBATE. 

FIRST  DAY. 

♦*  Silence  and  good  order  universally  pervading  the  large  as- 
"  sembly,  I  thus  began:  Men,  Bre'hren,  and  Fathers;"  After 
which  entre,  I  endeavoured,  according  to  the  directions  of  Cice- 
ro, to  make  the  audience  attentive,  benevolent  and  docile,  by 
persuading  them  that  I  was  not  the  orijnal  challenger,  and  that 
i  meant  no  harm  to  Pedobaptists,  when  I  accused  them  of  hold- 
ing a  human  tradition  which  was  supremely  injurious  to  civil  and 
religious  society. 

My  Pedobaptist  Antagonist,  after  a  long-faced  introduction  of 
a  few  words,  and  in  cousequence  of  my  determination  to  treat 
the  subject  historically  as  well  as  argumentatively  or  scripturally, 
distributed  the  matter  of  the  challenge  into  seven  topics.  1. 
The  scriptural  subject  of  Baptism.  2.  The  scriptural  mode. 
3.  The  history  of  the  mode.  4.  The  history  of  the  subject  5. 
The  history  of  Anabaptism.  6.  The  effects  of  the  subject.  7. 
The  etFects  of  the  mode.  He  then  began  upon  the  first  topic, 
and  undertook  to  piove  that  the  scriptures  authoi-ized  the  baptism 
of  infants,  because  they  contained  divine  command  and  apostoli- 
cal precedent  for  this  cfuty. 

"I  then  arose.'"  "  Mr.  Pedobaptist,  theologically  consider- 
«'  ed,  is  digging  his  own  grave.  He  is,  in  fact,  about  to  defeat 
"  his  own  cause,  and  to  subvert  his  own  theses;  for  as  soon  as  he 
*'  has  proved  the  identity  of  the  two  societies,  so  soon  will  he 
"  have  destroyed  his  whole  scheme.     This  we  now  assert,  and  we 

<^A11  these  pomp»us  introductions  to  his  speeches  are  copied  from  Mr. 
Campbell's  book. 


182 

"  pledge  ourselves  to  make  it  manifest  as  soon  as  he  says  he  has 
"  proved  the  point.  The  case  will  stand  thus.  If  Mr.  Pedo- 
"  baptist  does  not  prove  the  identity  of  the  Jewish  and  Christian 
"  Societies,  this  being  fundamental  in  his  scheme,  he  is  on  his 
"  own  principles,  defeated.  And  I  now  assert  and  pledge  mj- 
*'  self  to  prove  hereafter,  that  if  he  does  prove  their  identity,  he 
"has  not  only  killed,  but  buried  himself  In  either  case  his 
"cause  is  lost  On  this  ground  it  will  be  j^royenthat  the  Fedo- 
*'  baptist  cause  is  untenable." 

My  Pedobaptist  Opponent  then  proved  a  divine  command  for 
infant  baptism  by  arguing  in  five  propositions    as  follows ;  viz. 

1.  Abraham  and  his  seed  were  divinely  constituted  a  visible 
church  of  God.  2.  The  Christian  church  is  a  branch  of  the  Abia- 
hamic  church  :  or,  in  other  words,  the  Jewish  Society,  before 
Christ,  and  the  Christian  Society,  after  Christ,  are  one  and  the 
same  Church,  in  different  dispensations.  3.  Jewish  circumci- 
sion, before  Christ,  and  Christian  baptism,  after  Christ,  are  one 
and  tne  same  seal  in  substance,  though  in  different  forms.  4. 
The  administration  of  this  seal  to  infants  was  once  enjoined  by 
divine  authority  ;  that  is,  God  once  commanded  it.  5.  The  ad- 
ministration of  this  seal  to  infants  has  never  since  been  prohibit- 
ed by  divine  authority  ;  that  is,  this  command  of  God  originally 
given  in  the  Old  Testament,  is  not  repealed  in  tWe  New  Testa- 
ment, but  rather  confirmed^  therefore  he  concluded  that  this 
command  was  still  in  force.  He  then  proceeded  to  establish  his 
first  proposition,  that  Abraham  and  his  seed  were  divinely  con- 
stituted a  visible  church  of  God.  This  he  did  by  shewing  that 
the  Abrahamic  Society  had     1.  The  oracles  of  a  visible  church. 

2.  The  ordinances.  3.  The  members.  4.  The  officers.  5. 
The  constitution.  6.  The  express,  inspired,  at.d  unequivocal 
name  of  a  visible  church. 

»'I  then  arose."  "  You  vvill  no  doubt,  my  friends,  beexpect- 
"  ing  that  1  should  now  think  about  redeeming  my  pledge.  I 
"  confess  the  time  has  come,  when  it  becomes  my  duty.  What 
'*  was  I  to  do  ?  I  think  this  was  my  promise  :  that  so  soon  as 
*'  Mr.  Pedobaptist  had  finished  the  second  position,  I  would 
*'  show,  that  in  proving  it  to  be  true,  he  would  thereby  confute 
*' himself."  ''You  will  however,  no  doubt,  consider,  my  friends, 
"  that  according  to  my  promise,  something  more  is  due.  For  I 
"said  if  Mr.  Pedobaptist  proved  the  identity  of  the  two  chur- 
"  ches  he  was  confuted,  on  the  plainest  principles  j  and  I  also 
*'said  if  he  did  not,  he  would  be  coiifuted  on  his  own  principles. 
*'  Upon  the  supposition,  then,  of  his  having  proved  his  first  po- 
"sition,  we  have  seen  he  is  theologically  dead  and  buried.  But 
"now  I  proceed  to  shew  that  he  has  not  proved  the  identity  of 
"  the  two  churches — consequently  on  his  own  principles,  con- 
"  futed.  Here  I  request  you  to  watch  me  closely,  as  this  is  a 
*'pointof no  little  moment."  -'But  recollect,  my  friend%,  he 
*' nas  not  made  one  struggle  to  get  out  of  the  pit  into  which  he 
*•  has  fallen.  He  is  buried  under  the  ruins  of  one  of  his  bulwarks ! 


133 

"  Better  try  to  get  out  of  the  present  catastrophe  than   to  add  to 
"  the  mass  of  inaterials  already  too  heavy  Ur  bear." 

My  Pedobaptist  Opponent  then  endeavoured  to  establish  his 
2nd  proposition,  tlie  ecclesiastical  i(heiitity  of  tlie  Jewish  and 
Christian  .Societies  This  he  did  by  shewing  from  scL-ipture  tliat 
they  were  the  same  m  religion,  names,  and  constitution  or  cove- 
nant. Under  the  head  oi'  religion,  he  specitied  theology,  morali- 
ty, worship,  governnieat  and  discipline.  JJiider  tiie  head  of 
names,  he  specified  such  as  treasure,  king<bni,  naiion,  genera- 
tion, priestliood,  people,  tree,  vineyard,  foundation,  floor,  house, 
comioonwealtii,  man,  brethren,  bride,  children.  Under  the 
head  of  covenant,  he  proved  that  the  Abrahamic,  and  not  the 
Sinaitic  covenant  was  the  common  ecclesiastical  constitution  of 
the  Jewish  and  Christian  Societies. 

''I  then  spoke."  "I  v/ill  pledge  my  erudition,  my  critical 
*' acumen,  my  respectability  as  a  scholar,  that  he 'cannot  upon 
"  the  investigation  of  that  reference — nay,  I  will  rest  the  whole 
"  controversy  upon  it.  If  he  proves  this  one  point,  we  shall  say 
"  all  is  proved,  and  his  cause  triumphant.  The  conditions  arc 
"  a'-suredly  most  easy,  and  this  brings  us  to  a  speedy  issue." 
"  Let  Mr.  Pedobaptist  meet  us  on  this  passage,  as  we  have  pro- 
"  posed  to  meet  hnn  on  many  others :  we  uill  rest  the  wiiole 
''controversy  on  this  point.  If  he  establishes  his  views  by  a 
"fair  criticism  on  this  passage,  although  it  would  not  att'ect  the 
"  main  topics  of  discussion,  yet  we  would  cheerfully  say  that  he 
"had  gained  a  victory.''  "I  asked  him  to  produce  one  testi- 
"mony  of  holy  scripture,  to  shew  that  baptism  was  ever  called. 
♦•  a  seal  ot  any  covenant.  Did  he  attempt  it .''  No.  I  then  pledg- 
"ed  myself  to  rest  the  whole  controversy,  as  far  as  I  was  ron- 
"  cerned  in  it,  upon  his  proving  from  Rom.  4,  11,  that  circumci- 
"  sion  was  to  any,  or  every  Jew,  what  it  was  to  Abraham.  Did 
"  he  meet  me  on  this  topic  .^  ]So.  And  yet  he  goes  on  asserting 
"  these  points,  as  though  he  had  proved  every  thing.  And  a^ain 
"  1  gave  him  a  similar  challenge  to  discuss  Col.  2,  11,  12.  Has 
"  he  met  on  that  point  eithei  .^  No,  no.  In  no  one  instance, 
*'  from  the  commencement  of  this  discussion,  dare  he  encounter 
"  me  on  any  definite  terms — he  does  best  at  a  great  distance. 
"  He  keeps  oif  at  sea,  fearing  to  be"  land  bound."  "  1  will  rest 
"  the  whole  weight  of  the  controversy  uj)on  tlie  correctness  of  the 
"  statement  I  have  made,  u[)on  the  exposition  of  the  allegory  I 
"have  given."  I  closed  this  animated  and  terrific  aihlress,  by 
asserting  tliat  Calvin  and  Bcza  were  the  fust  who  had  ever  said 
that  baptism  had  come  in  the  room  of  circumcision. 

The  poltron  of  a  Pedobaptist,  without  taking  the  least  notice 
of  one  word  that  I  had  said,  proceeded  very  co.illy  to  establish  his 
third  proposition,  the  sisriUinticcd  i«ientity  of  circumcision  and 
baptism;  by  producing  scripture  for  their  use  and  signification, 
their  duration,  their  subject,  and  their  substance.  On  their  use 
and  signification  he  shewed  that  thcv  were  both  iHitiatorv  seals, 


134 

that  they  were  both  signs  of  justification,  and  both  signs  and 
means  of  sanctification.  On  their  duration  he  proved  from  Rom. 
4,  11,  that  though  circumcision,  as  to  its  original  form,  is  now 
dead,  jet  it  still  lives  in  substance,  in  another  form.  On  their 
subject,  he  proved  from  Phil,  3,  2,  3,  that  Christians  were  now 
the  ciixumcision  ;  that  is,  in  a  certain  sense,  circumcised.  On 
their  substance,  he  proved  from  Col.  2,  11,  12,  that  baptism  was 
the  circumcision  of  Christ,  that  is,  the  Christian  circumcision. 
In  opposition  to  my  assertion  that  Calvin  and  Beza  were  the  first 
that  ever  held  the  substantial  identity  of  circumcision  and  bap- 
tism, he  produced  the  express  declarations  of  Athanasius,  Epipha- 
nius,  Austin,  Chrysostom,  Ambrose,  Basil,  Cyprian,  and  Justin 
Martyr.     He  then  answered  objections  to  this  doctrine. 

"  I  then  proceeded''  with  a  dissertation  on  the  petition  "  Thy 
kingdom  come;"  (which  I  have  preached  in  Lexington  and  ma- 
ny other  places,)  shewing  that  to  use  such  a  prayer  now,  must 
proceed  from  ignorance  or  wickedness.  None  but  those  who 
ihave  been  in  my  situation  can  imagine  how  happily  this  sermon 
answered  here,  to  take  off  the  attention  from  those  old  supersti- 
tious Pedobaptist  Fathers  that  had  been  quoted  against  me,  to 
shew  that  Calvin  and  Beza  were  not  the  first  to  say  that  baptism 
had  come  in  the  room  of  circumcision,  but  that  this  doctrine  can 
be  traced  up  to  the  Apostles. 

My  Pedobaptist  Opponent  who  was  both  ignorant  and  wicked, 
then  established  his  fourth  proposition,  that  there  is  a  divine  com- 
mand for  the  administration  of  this  seal  to  infants  ;  and  his  fifth 
proposition,  that  this  command  has  never  yet  been  repealed,  but 
rather  confirmed;  after  which  he  drew  his  conclusion  that  it  wa^ 
still  binding.  He  considered  himself  then  as  having  made  good 
his  argument  that  there  is  now  in  force,  a  divine  command  for 
the  baptism  of  infants.  He  then  entered  upon  his  argument  from 
Apostolical  practice.  Here  he  displayed  the  doctrine  of  house- 
hold baptism;  shewing  that  oikia  and  oikus and  oikodomeo,  with 
their  numerous  conjugates,  whether  used  in  relation  to  the  mate- 
rial or  spiritual  house,  the  ecclesiastical  or  celestial,  the  national 
or  sectional,  the  royal  or  pontifical,  the  patriarchal  or  domestic 
house,  will  all  confirm  and  illustrate  the  doctrine  that  a  house- 
hold embraces  infants,  and  that  the  household  baptism  of  the  New 
Testament  is  infant  baptism. 

2nd  DAY. 

The  Pedobaptist  entered  this  day  upon  his  second  Topic,  the 
scriptural  mode  of  baptism,  on  which  he  took  the  following  po- 
sition, viz.  The  scriptures  do  not  make  submersion  essential  to 
baptism:  after  which  he  criticized  the  original  word  at  con- 
siderable length. 

*' I  r<;plied"  J.  P.  C.  allows  three  minutes  a-piece  for  hear- 
"  ing  the  experience  and  baptizing  each  of  the  candidates  and. 


135 

"  confining  it  to  twelve  persons,  he  calculates  more  than  twelve 
"hours  would  be  requisite.  But  he  forgot  that  the  Apostles 
"  were  not  such  dreamersand  talkers  about  experience  as  some 
"of  his  contemporaries.  Query.  How  long  did  it  take  the 
"  e.unuch  to  give  in  his  experience  ?"  "  As  to  those  puerilities 
"  you  have  heard  about  John's  baptizing  with  a  squirt,  or  some 
"  such  thing  in  order  to  despatch  the  business,  about  the  impossi- 
*'  bility  of  the  tliiee  thousand  being  iminersed  in  one  piece  of  a 
"  day  ;  about  Paul's  standing  up  to  be  baptized  ;  about  the  jai- 
"  ler's  not  being  able  to  find  water  sufficient  for  immersion,  and 
*'  a  number  of  other  such  boyisms,  they  are  not  half  so  feasible 
"  as  the  arguments  in  favour  of  transubstantiation."  "  They 
"  are  all  put  out  of  countenance  by  adverting  to  the  fact  that  one 
"  person  can  immerse  as  many  as  another  can  sprinkle  in  a 
*'  given  time.  There  are  well  attested  facts  of  60  persons  being 
"  immersed  in  30  minutes,  or  in  that  proportion,  when  the  bap- 
"  tizer  simply  immersed  those  led  into  the  pool  or  bath,  or  river 
«  to  him." 

My  Pedobaptist  Opponent  then  descanted  upon  scriptural 
cases,  scenes,  and  circumstances  of  water  baptism  :  remarking 
that  if  he  were  to  admit  (which  he  did  not)  that  baptizing  where 
there  were  rivers  and  much  water  proved  submersion,  yet  bap- 
tizing in  the  City  of  Jerusalem,  in  the  jail  at  Philippi,  and  in  the 
desert  of  Judea,  would  argue  more  strongly  for  sprinkling,  pour- 
ing or  washing ; if  going  down  into  and  coming  up  out  of 

the  water,  must  prove  submersion,  (which  he  was  far  from  ad- 
mitting,) then  arising  and  washing  away  ones  sins  in  baptism, 
as  in  the  case  of  Saul,  must  be  something  else  than  immer- 
sion ; if  the  going  of  the  subject  to  the  water  must  be  a 

proof  of  submersion,  (which  he  could  not  admit,)  then  the  bringing 
of  the  water  to  the  subject  is  a  proof  of  sprinkling,  pouring  or 

washing  ; and  if  the  baptism  in  Ihe  Jordan  and  Enon  must 

prove  that  the  subject  was  buried  under  the  water,  (which  they 
aid  not,)  the  baptism  in  the  cloud  and  in  the  sea  is  an  undoubted 
case  in  which  the  numerous  subjects  were  only  sprinkled,  while 
the  Egyptians  were  immersed  like  the  Gadarene  swine  and  the 
Devils,  the  latter  of  which  he  broadly  insinuated,  (like  Mr. 
Greatrake,)  were  my  disciples,  because  they  believed  my  "  one 
FACT,"  and  received  adult  immersion.  He  then  examined  cer- 
tain Greek  prepositions  and  the  passages  in  which  they  occur, 
and  commented  more  particularly  upon  those  passages  which  evi- 
dently prove  a  partial  administration  of  water  in  Christian  bap- 
tism. 

*'I  rejoined,"  by  proposing  to  my  Opponent  that  we  should, 
during  the  remainder  ol  the  conference,  dispense  with  all  our 
papers  and  books,  and  made  a  speeeh  to  shew  that  this  was  the 
only  way  in  which  we  could  dispute  vivo  voce!  How  evident  is 
it  that  when  notes  or  books  are  used  in  the  Senate  or  at  the  bar, 
their  contents  are  communicated,  not  viva  voce,  that  is  with 
TMEHviNG  voice,  but  with  dumb  signs!     Besides,  the  man  who 


,  13G 

flike  Webster  in  Congress)  uses  such  helps,  gives  plain  proof  of 
'''■  conscious  incoinpetency.''^  How  different  from  the  Hero,  who 
can  speak  six  hours  at  a  stretch,  with  no  other  help  than  a  gal- 
lon of  porter  and  a  volume  of  Burke,  and  can  throw  such  a  spell 
upon  an  enraptured  audience,  that  when  he  is  done,  they  can- 
not guess  to  what  point  of  the  compass  he  would  direct  their  at- 
tention. 

Mj  Pedobaptist  Opponent  referred  my  proposal  to  the  Bench, 
for  their  opinion.  Altiiough  the  President  was  himself  a  lawyer 
and  a  legislator,  he  seemed  so  grossly  ignorant  of  Latin  and  the 
rules  of  order,  as  to  suppose  that  a  debate  might  be  viva  voce, 
although  books  and  papers  might  be  used.  The  Moderators 
therefore  allowed  the  use  of  them,  as  consistent  with  our  wintten 
agreement.  After  this  my  Opponent  established  his  views  of 
the  scriptural  mode  of  baptism,  by  scriptuial  allusions  and  com- 
parisous,in  which  last  he  proved  that  Noah'S  Ark  was  not  submers 
ed,  as  had  been  asserted.     He  then  closed  with  a  recapitulation. 

*'  In  reply  to  which  i  spoke."  "  My  friends  this  is  the  most 
"  singular  discussion  I  iiave  either  seen  or  read  of.  What  is  the 
"  subject  of  controversy.*^  What  were  y<>ur  expectations  in  com- 
"ing  iiitlitn'.^  To  hear  a  discussion  upon  church  government, 
"  discipline,  doctrine.^  &c.  &c.  Is  this  the  topic  under  discus- 
"  sion.^  In  this  course  of  procedure  there  can  be  no  debate. 
*'Mr.  Pedobaptist  and  i  resemble  two  ships  at  sea;  he  sails  in 
*' latitude  40  north,  and  I  in  latitude  40  south,  each  bound  for 
*'  his  own  port.  We  may  pass  each  other  in  one  latitude  on  our 
*'  voyage.  We  may  then  salute  each  other  and  proceed.  Is 
*'  this  the  order  of  debates  in  schools,  in  deliberative  bodies,  on 
*' any  topic,  in  any  country.'"'  "Mr.  Pedobaptist  as  he  sup- 
"  ports  the  affirmative  necessarily  opens  the  debate  and  the  Ana- 
*'  baptist  closes  it."  "  In  this  controversy  Baptists  have  noth- 
'^  ing  to  prove  as  respects  their  practice."  "In  every  contro- 
"  versy,  then,  with  the  Pedobaptists.  upon  this  topic,  they  af- 
"  firm  and  we  deny,  they  commence  and  we  respond."  "  Have 
"  I  not  opened  this  debate,  or  have  I  not  taken  an  affirmative 
"proposition.^  If  Mr.  Pedobaptist  be  my  opponent,  he  is,  I 
"presume,  bound  to  respond  to  me.  iTe  is  bound  to  proceed 
"  according  to  the  rules  of  respondents:  If  he  be  not  my  oppo- 
"  nent,  why  did  he  engage  to  discuss  this  subject?  Why  did 
"  he  agree  "to  take  the  negative  side  in  this  controversy?  Be- 
"  forel  proceed  in  waging  this  strange  and  unprecedented  war- 
"  fare  in  which  my  Antagonist  will  not  attack  me,  nor  defend 
"  himself  when  attacked,  but  is  fighting  with  some  unseen  An- 
"  tagonist,  and  occasionally  talking  to  me,  I  say,  before  I  pro- 
"ceed  farther  in  this  course,  I  will  appeal  to  the  Moderators  on 
"  a  question  of  order.  Gentlemen,  I  know  your  powers  in 
"  moderating  this  controversy  are  very  limited.  This  is  not  my 
"fault.  I  was  willing  to  lodge  all  necessary  power  in  ^our 
"hands.  To  this  Mr.  Pedobaptist  would  not  agree.  Yet  still  I 
"think  you  have  the  power  of  deciding  whether  we  ought  to 


137 

•'  proceed  this  way.  One  of  those  items  in  your  hand,  says  that 
*' you  are  ^  to  keep  order''  in  this  discussion.  The  question  then 
"  is — is  it  order,  in  controversy,  for  the  respondent  to  introduce 
*'  affirmative  propositions,  on  any  subject  he  pleases;  and  instead 
"  of  responding;  in  the  negative  to  his  Opponent,  to  spend  his 
"  time  in  proving  his  own  affirmations  on  otiier  topics?  This 
"  question  I  respectfully  submit  to  your  decision."  Thus  end- 
ed my  wind -broken  appeal.  •'  Bishop  Tricentiman,  after  a  num- 
ber of  remarks  and  references  [to  the  Parliaments  of  Scotland 
and  England,  and  the  French  Chamber  of  Deputies,  with  which 
he  and  myself  are  well  acquainted]  gave  it  as  his  conviction, 
*  that  it  was  ovt  of  order  for  Mr.  Pedobaptict  to  proceed  in  this 
■way.'  "  And  if  the  decision  had  been  by  weight  instead  of  num- 
bers, he  would  certainly  have  carried.  ♦'  Bishop  Tricenti- 
'*  man  exhibits  the  finest  appearance,  tall  and  well  propor- 
"  tioned,  weighing  500  lbs.  of  a  remarkably  florid  and  heal- 
"  thy  aspect,  possessing  uncommon  energies  of  constitution, 
*'  and  though  on  the  borders  of  50,  says  he  feels  no  abatement 
«*  of  his  constitutional  vigour."  Although  this  description  may 
rather  overrate  the  symmetry  of  the  Bishop's  appearance,  (an 
error  which  is  often  found  in  advertisements  of  stray  horses,) 
yet  I  seriously  think  that  he  does  not  look  so  much  like  a  hogs- 
head as  some  pretend.  1  will  also  readily  admit  that  the  bish- 
op does  not  weigh  as  much  as  some  shew-beeves  have  done  of 
late,  yet  he  certainly  out-weighs  both  the  other  Moderators.  The 
Pedobaptist  Moderator  "Mr.  Rod  is  rather  below^  mediocrity  in 
*'his  person,  and  his  countenance  does  not  indicate  the  most 
"healthy  constitution."  The  same  remark  will  apply  to  the 
President.  Yet  these  two  little  sickly  men,  whose  beauty  none 
but  Pedobaptists  admire,  overruled  the  most  august  dignitary  of 
the  house  of  Anak.  "The  Rev.  Rod^  replied  to  the  Bishop 
that  his  opinion  was  different''  The  President  then  decided 
the  point  against  me.  How  unmerciful  to  non-plus  me  in  this 
way !  I  knew  not  what  to  say  or  do.  I  begged  an  adjournment, 
and  gave  sickness  as  a  reason.  The  Bishop  immediately  took 
the  hint.  Notwithstanding  his  "  remarkably  florid  and  healthy 
aspect,"  he  complained  that  his  seat  had  been  uncomfortably 
hard  for  some  time;  so  as  to  occasion  a  slight  "  abatement  of  his 
constitutonal  vigor,''  in  despite  of  his  "uncommon  energies 
of  constiution."  We  carried  the  motion  for  adjournment  unan- 
imo  usly 

TFIIRD  DAY. 

**  I  thus  began."  <'  It  would  be  perhaps  unbecoming  and  un- 
*'  necessary  to  saj  any  thing  about  the  talents  or  acquisitions  of 
"  my  opponent.  His  own  letters  shew  that  he  was  competent, 
"  and  his  speeches  evince  that  his  industry  and  research  were 
"adequate  to  the  task  proposed,  if  his  cause  had  been  tenable. 
"  But  it  requires  more  than  Herculean  strength  to  bring  some- 
"  thing  out  of  nothing.  Had  Mr.  Pedobaptist  been  on  my  side 
"  and  I  on  his,  doubtless  I  would  have  been  put  to  confusion;  for 

(a)See  Mr.  Campbell's  Debate  p.  142. 

T 


138 

«*  I  remember  to  have  been  vanquished  by  an  old  lady  when  I 
"  argued  up  infant  baptism  against  her.  It  is  true  I  had  sorae- 
*' thing  to  say,  and  held  on  stoutly  to  the  last;  but  I  felt  in  my 
'*  own  heart  that  I  was  defeated;  and  what  mortified  me  no  lit- 
*' tie  was,  that  with  all  my  philosophy  and  divinity,  an  old  wo- 
"  man's  common  sense  overpowered  me."  ''What  honor  can 
*'  be  gained  from  an  encounter  with  a  gentleman,  a  reputed  lin- 
"guisttoo,  who,  like  Mr.  Pedobaptist  and  Mr.  R.,  could  bring 
"forward  '■  anastas'  in  the  case  of  Paul  as  a  proof  that  he  was 
*'sprinkled?     'He  arose'  and  was  immersed." 

My  Pedobaptist  Opponent  here  gave  me  Yankee  treatment. 
He  answered  my  last  question  by  asking  another.  I  had  asked 
*'  What  honor  can  be  gained  by  encountering  a  gentleman''  of 
such  a  character.'  He  replied,  What  honor  can  be  gai  ed  by 
encountering  a  man  who  is  constantly  uttering  empty  boasts  of 
his  "  philosophy  and  divinity,"  his  "erudition,"  his  "critical 
acumen,"  his  "  respectability  as  a  scholar,"  and  who  is  never- 
theless obliged  to  confess  that  "an  old  woman's  common  sense 
overpowered"  hivn,  and  he  was  "  vanquished  by  an  old  lady.'" 
He  then  entered  upon  his  third  Topic,  the  history  of  the  mode  of 
Baptism,  which  he  treated  analytically,  and  not  synthetically, 
which  latter  method  has  been  followed  by  every  one  else.  Here 
his  fundamental  proposition  was,  that  the  Christian  Church  has 
never  esteemed  submersion  essential  to  baptism.  He  divided 
their  testimony  into  three  periods.  1.  From  the  present  time 
back  to  WicklifFe.  2.  From  him  back  to  the  fifth  century.  3. 
From  that  date  back  to  the  Apostles.  He  then  entered  upon  his 
first  period,  and  examined  the  testimony  of  1,  America,  2,  A- 
sia,  3,  Africa.     After  which  his  time  expired. 

"I  then  replied."  "I  have  already  submitted  eight  argu- 
"  ments  or  evidences  of  the  plainest  character,  all  declarative 
*'  of  an  essential  difference  between  the  Jewish  church  and  the 
"  Christian  Kingdom — Mark  it  well,  my  friends,  Mr.  Pedobap- 
"  tist  has  not  replied  to  one  of  them."  '"  You  will  also  reniem- 
*'ber  that  he  has  not  so  much  as  yet  adverted  to  my  disquisition 
*'  on  the  words  in  controversy.''  "  You  will  also  remember  that 
*'  in  every  instance  when  I  invited  Mr.  Pedobaptist  to  the  dis- 
*'  cussion  of  any  particular  portion  of  scripture,  pledging  my- 
*'  self  to  rest  the  whole  controversy  upon  it,',  "  he  manfully  de- 
*'  clined,  and  resolutely  refused  to  do  so."  "  It  is  well  known 
"  to  you  all,  my  friends,  that  these  arguments  have  never  been 
*«  attacked  by  my  Opponent,  and  that  they  are  directly  subver- 
*'sive  of  his  whole  theory."  I  then  endeavoured  to  shew,  in 
glowing  colours,  how  unrighteous  and  oppressive  the  laws  of  the 
land  are,  in  stopping  men  from  driving  waggons  and  herds  of 
hogs  on  the  Sabbath  day.  A  Baptist  minister  present  observed 
that  he  had  been  of  that  opinion  for  thirty  years.  It  was  even 
reported  that  Bishop  Tricentiman  had  put  these  principles  into 
practice,  less  than  thirty  years  ago.  "  But  I  shall  give  place  iQ> 
*<  Mr.  Pedobaptist  to  read  farther." 


139 

The  Pedobaptist  then  continued  the  consideration  of  his  first 
period  J  and  examined  the  testimony  of  4.  Europe.  Among 
whom,  as  there  was  great  diversity,  he  examined  1.  Those  who 
advocate  exclusive  inaiiersion.  2.  Those  who  only  prefer  im- 
mersion. 3.  Those  who  practise  a  ])artial  administration  of  wa- 
ter. On  this  point  he  quoted  countries,  churches,  creeds,  trans- 
lators, commentators,  lexicographers,  and  reformers,  among 
whom  WicklifFe's  testimony  was  last  examined. 

*' I  thus  replied."  "Thus  we  have  seen  an  end  to  infant 
"baptism.  My  Opponent  has  tried  circumcision  and  the  law, 
"  the  Abrahamic  covenants;  he  has  tried  commands  and  prece- 
"  dents  of  the  Old  and  New  Testament;  he  has  tried  'prose- 
*' lyte  baptism,'  and  'household  baptism.'  He  has  travelled 
"  from  Genesis  to  Revelation — He  has  gone  from  Jerusalem  to 
"  the  uttermost  parts  of  the  earth — He  has  examined  the  annals 
"  of  the  world  foV  fifteen  hundred  years,  and  has  not  found  a  syl- 
"  lable  about  infant  baptism.  Ill  fated  cause.  It  deserves  to 
**  be  abandoned  for  ever.  Amen.  The  modus  operandi  he  has 
"  at  length  introduced— M)c?e  of  baptism,  curious  phrase!  Mode 
"of  immersion  is  immersion  itself,  and  mode  of  sprinkling  is 
"  sprinkling  itself.  Two  modes  of  immersion  and  one  of  them 
"  sprinkling  is  somewhat  dissonant.  Sprinkling  a  mode  of  im- 
"  mersion,  or  immersion  a  mode  of  sprinkling  is  a  new  mode  in 
"  Logic.  But  we  must  bow  with  deference  to  established  modes, 
"  and  it  is  vulgar  to  call  it  action  its  proper  name." 

*'  Mr.  Pedobaptist  resumed  his  notes,"  and  examined  the  tes- 
timony of  the  church  on  the  mode  of  Baptism,  from  the  time  of 
"WicklifFe  up  to  the  fifth  century;  by  1.  Their  pictures,  engrav- 
ings, and  monuments.  2.  Their  laws:  after  which  he  traced  the 
third  period,  from  the  fifth  century  up  to  the  Apostles. 

FOURTH  DAY. 

*'  I  commenced  as  usual."  A  dissertation  on  faith,  hope  and 
charity,  consisting  of  a  mixture  of  Paganism  and  Pelagianism 
occupied  the  time,  toward  the  close  of  which  I  asserted,  as  I 
had  frequently  done  before,  that  the  voice  of  the  Christian  Church 
had  always  been  in  our  favour,  on  the  subject  and  the  mode. 

The  Pedobaptist  entered  upon  his  4th  Topic,  the  history  of 
the  subject  of  baptism,  which,  like  the  Ihird,  was  treated  ana- 
lytically. The  proposition  which  he  undertook  to  establish,  was 
that  the  Christian  Church  has  always  practised  infant  Baptism. 
For  convenience,  he  considered  their  evidence  in  six  divisions. 
He  examined  their  practice  1.  Erom  the  present  time  back  to 
the  reformation  in  the  16th  century.  2.  The  reformers  who  liv- 
ed before  that  period.  3.  The  Waldenses.  4.  Bark  to  the 
fifth  century.  5.  The  first  four  centuries.  6.  Jewish  prose- 
lyte Baptism. 


140 

^'  I  then  addressed  the  people.-'  "Now  we  have  not  read 
*'  Rice's  pamphleteer,  but  we  have  read  some  [all]  of  the  writ- 
"  iiigs  of  Aristotle  and  Plato  in  the  original,  and  we  have  read 
"  Ur.  Samuel  Rallston's  '  condensed  view'  of  the  criticism,  and 
"  we  boldly  pronounce  that  it  is  'a  refuge  of  lies.' — And  we 
"  will  go  a  little  farther  jetj  and  affirm,  that  not  only  is  the 
"  criticism  erroneous:  but  that  assertions  are  made  in  the  '  con- 
"  densed  view'  referred  to,  that  are  downright  falsehoods. 
"  Mark  it  well,  my  friends.  We  have  said  falsehoods. '^^  "  If 
*'  ever  this  discussion  should  meet  the  public  eye,  I  am  wofully 
"  mistaken  if  his  whole  course  in  this  controversy  will  not  ap- 
"  pear  in  the  highest  degree  evasive.  Assertion  and  evasion 
*'  are  the  two  most  prominent  features  in  the  polemical  charac- 
''ter  of  Mr.  Pedobaptist." 

My  Pedobaptist  Antagonist  then  replied  as  follows,  viz:  "I 
"heard  much  of  my  Opponent's  learning  and  talents  before  I 
"  ever  saw  him;  but  never  did  I  hear  half  so  much  in  his  praise 
"  from  any  other  quarter,  as  from  his  own  lips.  How  does  he 
"  delight  to  inform  us  of  his  erudition,  philosophy  and  divinity! 
^'and  lest  we  should  not  sufficiently  prize  his  critical  acumen^ 
'♦and  his  respectability  as  a  scholar,  he  must  tell  us,  (whether 
"  truly  or  not  I  dare  not  say.)  that  he  has  read  all  the  works  of 
"  Aristotle  and  Plato  in  the  original.  What  a  contrast  is  there 
"  between  him  and  tlie  ignorant  raw  Kentuckian  who,  without 
"being  able  to  read  one  chapter  in  the  Septuagint,  or  even  to 
"  repeat  five  verses  of  our  translation,  has  ventured  to  meet 
"him!  Rash  mortal  that  I  v/as,  to  encounter  such  a  literary 
"  Sea-serpent!  But  since  it  is  too  late  to  recede,  I  shall  endea- 
"  vour,  with  divine  assistance,  to  finish  the  4th  Topic  by  an- 
"  swering  Baptist  arguments  in  relation  to  it,  and  by  taking 
"  some  notice  of  the  works  which  are  quoted  in  favour  of  the 
"  Baptist  cause."  "And  here  he  gave  such  a  mass  of  slander, 
as  was  perhaps  never  equalled  since  the  flood.  The  consequence 
was  that  as  this  took  place  on  Saturday  evening,  Bishop  Tricen- 
timaii  could  not  endure  the  burthen  until  the  next  Monday,  but 
insisted  strenuously  upon  continuing  the  debate  through  the  Sab- 
bath.    He  was  overruled  by  the  other  two. 

FIFTH  DAY. 

I  began  this  day  by  insisting,  as  I  had  often  done,  that  the 
Christian  Church  had  always. been  in  our  favour.  I  traced  the 
Baptists  of  the  present  day  up  to  the  Apostles,  by  a  variety  of 
channels:  whereas  all  other  churches  were  of  late  and  low  origin. 

My  Pedobaptist  Opponent  then  entered  upon  his  fifth  Topic, 
the  history  of  Anabaptism;  in  wMch  he  undertook  to  prove  that 
the  Baptists  of  England  and  America  are  descended  from  the 
Anabaptists  of  the  sixteenth  century,  and  that  they  cannot  be 
traced  higher.     He  complained  of  having  been  compelled  to-  in- 


J4i 

vestigate  this  subject,  against  his  will.  He  examined  the  various 
channels  through  which  Baptist  writers  profess  to  ascend  to  the 
primitive  churches.  1.  By  the  name  of  Baptists.  2.  By  their 
f)eculiarities.     After  which  his  time  expired. 

"I  then  addressed  the  assembly."  "Having  now  replied  to 
"  every  thing  advanced  by  Mr.  Pedobaptist  from  thecommence- 
"  ment  of  this  discussion,  bearing  directly  or  indirectly  a- 
"  gainst  our  views;  and  having  also  advanced  sundry  arguments 
"  both  as  respects  the  subject  and  action  of  baptisn»,  which  he  has 
"  not  so  niiM  h  as  ventured  to  impugn,  I  thinlc  I  am  entitled  to 
"  say,  that  1  am  not  only,  as  respondent,  got  up  with  him,  but 
"in  the  proof  of  tiie  propositions  which  I  was  pledged  to  prove, 
"  I  have  got  considerably  a-head  of  him  in  the  natural  stages  of 
"this  debate."  "And  you  will  have  the  goodness  to  bear  in 
"  mind  that  not  one  of  them  has  been  formally  impugned  by  Mr. 
"  Ped'  baptist.  We  consider  them,  then,  as  far  as  respects  iiim, 
**  unanswerable." 

My  Opponent  then  examined  3.  What  historical  evidence 
there  is  that  the  Baptists  are  descended  from  tiie  Apostles.  1. 
Through  the  English  Aborigines,  to  whom  it  is  said  that  the  Apos- 
tles preached.  2.  Through  the  Waldenses,  whom  he  had  before 
proved  to  be  Pedobaptists. 

"  I  then  addressed  th«^  congregation."  "  Having  now  paid 
"  much  more  respect  to  his  arguments  than  he  has  done  to  mine. 
"  I  will,  my  friends,  for  the  sake  of  occupying  a  few  minutes 
"  advtntageously,  deliver  you  a  short  address  on  an  importanl 
"  fact."  "  1  compL'.ined  in  my  last  address,  that  Mr.  Pedobap- 
"  tist  read  his  arguments  from  his  manuscript,  and  neglected  t» 
*'  respond  to  mine;  which  he  is  bound  to  do,  according  to  all 
"  established  usage;  or  else  to  yield  the  point  at  issue."  "Mr. 
"  Pedobaptist  still  goes  on  to  prove  a  point  that  I  have  not 
"denied.  He  is  determined  to  take  his  own  course;  whether 
"  his  arguments  are  denied  or  affirmed." 

My  Opponent  then  examined  other  channels  through  whicli 
various  ISaptist  writers  endeavour  to  trace  themselves  to  the 
Apostles.  3.  Through  heretical  societies;  to  which  he  observed 
we  were  welcome,  although  historical  evidence  was  wantin>', 
for  their  being  either  christians  or  Baptists.  4.  Many  Baptists 
acknowledge  their  connexion  with  Munzer,  and  this  can  be 
proved,  whether  they  admit  it  or  not.  5.  The  inscrutability  of 
their  liistory,  prior  to  Munzer,  as  acknowledged  and  urged  by 
the  Baptists  themselves,  is  evidence  that  they  cannot  be  traced 
to  the  Apostles. 

«I  then  addressed  the  assembly."  "Mr.  Pedobaptist  has 
"  proved  by  the  method  he  has  taken,  that  he  was  con- 
"  sciousinhisown  breast,  that  he  conld  not  maintain  his  views 
"  of  baptism  in  a  fair  discussion.     Mv  reason  for  so  alledg 


142 

"•  ing  is  taken  from  the  fact,  that  (le  v/rote  down  at  home  all  that 
""he  has  advanced  as  argument  in  this  discussion  ;  and  knowing 
"  that  he  had  all  he  could  or  vvouki  say  in  writing,  he  at  the  same 
*'time,  insisted  that  1  should  open  the  debate,  whereas  he  was 
"determined  to  keep  to  his  notes,  let  me  take  what  course  I 
"might.  This  then,  I  conceive  to  be  decisive  evidence  of  his 
*'  conscious  incompetency.  His  marked  out  course  required, 
*'  in  the  nature  of  things,  that  he  should  open  and  I  respond — 
"  but  he  wished  to  have  the  place  of  the  respondent,  and  at  the 
"  same  time  to  introduce  the  matter  to  be  discussed.  This  was 
"  good  policy,  but  bad  logic."  Here  I  could  not  help  complain- 
ing again  of  tlie  refusal  of  the  bench  to  control  the  movements 
of  my  unmerciful  Opponent.  The  President  called  me  to  or- 
der ;  and  observed  that  these  insinuations  were  painful,  and 
it  was  time  to  declare  their  inconsistency  with  decorum.  I 
then  eased  my  heart  by  complaining  of  the  intolerable  length 
of  time  consumed  in  a  discussion,  wliich  I  had  thought  could 
not  occupy  more  than  a  day  or  two  at  the  farthest.  But  lest 
the  people  should  suppose  that  such  whining  arose  from  "  con- 
scious incompetency,"  I  engaged  largely  in  the  challenging, 
trade.  I  challenged  my  Opponent  to  meet  me  on  this  point, 
and  I  challenged  him  to  meet  me  on  that  text,  and  at  last  I 
challenged  him  to  read  chapter  about  with  me  in  the  Septua- 
gint :  after  which  I  published  another  general  challenge,  with 
such  new  conditions  as  effectually  to  secure  me  hereafter  from 
the  intrusion  of  such  plodding  polemics  as  my  imperturbable 
Opponent,  who  had  taught  me  by  experience  that  challenging 
■was  much  easier  than  fighting.  My  new  challenge  therefore  re- 
quired that  my  next  Presbyterian  Antagonist  should  be  a  Presi- 
dent of  a  college,  or  should  be  appointed  by  a  Presbytery  or  Sy- 
nod ;  and  that  if  he  were  an  Episcopalian,  he  should  be  a  Digni- 
tary of  the  Church  ;  for  who  else  is  fit  to  meet  so  dignified  a  per- 
sonage as  I  myself  .►*  Feeling  myself  now  pretty  well  entrench- 
ed against  a  future  assault,  and  being  at  a  loss  for  something  to 
say,  I  began  to  sneer  at  the  books  which  my  Opponent'  had 
brought  with  him.  But  fearing  that  the  people  would  think  me 
no  book-man,  I  observed,  "It  is  true,  I  had  about  150  volumes, 
which  I  would  have  brought  v/ith  me,  but  for  the  stage  of  the 
river:  But  if  I  had  brought  them,  I  should  have  been  Tar  from 
using  them  as  my  Opponent  has  done.  I  should  only  have  kept 
them  as  vouchers. "" 

My  Pedobaptist  Opponent  then  spoke  as  follows,  viz.  *'  The 
"  audience  were  probably  aware  that  with  my  last  address,  my 
*'  argument  on  the  history  of  Anabaptism  was  closed.  A  short 
"  appendix  to  that  history  is  all  that  is  now  intended  Authen- 
*'  tic  records  have  perpetuated  the  remembrance  of  the  Rustic 
*'  war,  and  the  feats  of  Munzer  the  author  of  that  sanguinary 
"  conflict :  but  the  mental  exercises  of  that  artful  but  incompe- 

"^Tliesfi  words,  or  words  to  the  same  amount  were  used  in  the  discus* 
aion ;  but  oaly  a  part  of  them  are  in  Mr.  C's  Keport. 


143 


**  tent  chieftain  have  been  in  a  great  measure  buried  in  oblivion. 
*'  It  is  my  intention  to  supply  this  defect  as  well  as  may  be,  by 
*'  a  careful  attention  to  the  inte-esting  exercises  of  a  legitimate 
*'  desendant  of  Munzer,  in  similar  circumstances  of  affliction 
"  and  dismay.  Wlien  Munzer  was  breathing  out  his  arrithemas 
**  and  challenges  to  the  Fedobaptist  world,  he  was  doubtless  bol- 
♦'  stered  up  with  the  thought  that  he  was  the  Grand  Patriarch  of 
*'  the  Anabaptist  Religionists,  and  Captain  General  of  the  Rus- 
"  tic  Warriors.  Wlien  the  Rubicon  was  past,  and  he  was 
♦'  hemmed  in  by  an  army,  and  the  awful  realities  of  the  tug  of 
*'  war  stared  him  full  in  the  face,  it  is  natural  that  his  self-confi- 
*'<lence  should  give  place  to  agitations  of  soul  with  which  it  is 
*' highly  desirable  that  his  descendants  should  be  acquainted. 
*'  As  far  as  my  means  of  information  go,  these  struggles  of  his 
"illustrious  bosom  were  probably  expressed  in  something  like 

*'the  following  soliloquy. 'With  what  an  Emperor  is 

'  Germany  cursed  !  How  little  does  he  know  of  the  Modera- 
tor's office,  or  the  rules  of  order!     I  told  him  long  ago,  that 

*  as  I  began  the  conflict,  and  thus  took  the  affirmative,  my  ene- 

*  mies  were  bound  to  respondto  my  directions,  in  their  choice  of 

*  weapons  and  measures.    Had  he  compelled  them  to  follow  thi.s 

*  plan,  which  is  dictated  by  common  sense  and  immemorial  us- 

*  age,  I  should  have  soon  tied  them  and  him  hand  and  foot,  and 

*  given  them  over  to  the  tender  mercies  of  my  undisciplined 
'troops.  For  the  want  of  this  wise  measure,  our  struggle  has 
<  been  protracted  to  a  most  immoderate  length.     I  told  my  men 

*  that  It  should  not  last  more  than  three  hours,  or  a  day  at  most: 

*  but  here  we  have  been  on  the  rack  for  many  days,  and  can  see 
'  no  end  to  the  affair  yeU  unless,  Alas  !  it  shall  soon  end  in  our 

*  utter  discomfiture.  I  expected  to  have  written  home  before 
'  this  time,  m  the  language  of  the  victorious  Csesar,  "  veni,  vi- 
'  Di,  vici,  /came,  I  saw,  1  conquered:''  but  I  have  fearfui  fore- 

*  bodings,  tuat  my  Anabaptist  father,  who  helped  me  in  a  former 

*  combat,  and  whose  help  I  greatly  need  now,  will  have  to  look 

*  out  at  the  window,  like  the  mother  of  Sisera,  ard  cry  throu-rb 

*  the  lattice,  ^'  Why  is  his  chariot  so  long  in  comino-?  why  ta^'r- 
;  rv  the  wheels  of  his  chariot  ?"     I  am  the  more  apprehensive 

ot  this  fearful   issue,  from  having  again  examined  the  ground 
upon  which  our  decisive  battle  must  now  be  fouo-ht.     It  is  true 
*that  this  .IS  the  very  spot  on  which  I  challenged  them  to  meet 
1?/^  "^"tthcn  It  was  with  the  expectation  that  our  Imperial 
Moderator  was  well  enough  acquainted  with  the  rules  of  cr- 
uder, to  compel  them  to  take  such  a  course  as  I  should  dictate. 
« and  not  permit  them  to  take  their  own  course  as  they  are  now 
'doing.     Here    we  are  like  kids  surrounded  bv    wolves,  and 
with  nothing  but  a  pervious  breastwork  of  baggage  wa--ons 
to  protect  us  from  their  unbridled  fury.     But  I  am  detennhied 
what  to  do.     I  will  challenge  some  Dignitary  of  the  Church, 
or  some  President  of  a  College  to  meet^ne  single  handed;  and 
^Z.Z         '^  «^^^P^  f'|"n  my  present  ticklish  situation   into 
^t^.M^'^'-^T^  challenge  brought  ,ne,  I  will  challenge  him 
to  meet  me  m  Lnon,  or  the  River  Jordan,  or  the  Red  sla,  my 


144 

*  own  element,    or  if  he  would  prefer  it,  I  will  challenge  him  to 

*  meet  me  on  Aloiint  Ararat,   and  there  to  read  chapter  about 

*  with  me  in  the  Septuagint,  and  to  chime  or  chaunt  the  Origi- 
'  na'l  of  Peter^s  First  Epistle,  [to  the  tune  of  Dr.  McKnight,3 
'  from  which  I  will  undertake  to  shew  by  three  incontrovertible 
'  proofs,  that  Noah's  Ark  was  actually  submersed  in  the  waters 
^  of  the  flood,  as  a  figure  of  baptism;  and  that  after  this,  it  arose 

*  to  the  top  of  the  water  and  settled  on  Mount  Ararat,  the  place 
'  of  our  meeting.     If  they  will  not  agree  to  let  me  out  of  their 

*  hands,  upon  the  ground  of  any  one  of  mj  numerous  defiances, 
'  I  shall  publish  them  as  cowards,  and  my  people  at  least,  will 
'  believe  it.  But  what  wheeled  engines  are  those  which  I  see 
'  them  arranging  and  presenting  against  us?     Behold  what  das- 

*  tardly  weapons  for  men  of  honor  and  spirit  to  use!  Nothing 
'  but  "  conscious  incompetency"  ever  brought  artillery  into  the 
'  field.  It  is  true  that  I  have  a  hundred  and  fifty  pieces  of  ord- 
'  nance  at  home,  which  I  should  have  brought  to  the  scene  of  ac- 
'  tion,  but  for  the  low  stage  of  the  water;  but  if  I  had  brought 
'  them,  can  any  one  suppose  that  I  would  be  so  destitute  of  cour- 
'  age  and  politeness,  as  to  use  them,  and  thus  raise  a  smell  and 

*  a  smoke  that  would  be  enough  to  take^away  the  men's  appetites 

'for  their  dinner?' While  speaking  thus,  little  did  Mun- 

**  zer  know  how  many  of  his  men  had  eaten  their  last  dinner. 
'*  The  stomachs  and  olfactories  of  their  enemies  were  not  too 
"  delicate  to  burn  powder.  They  opened  a  fire  upon  them 
"  which  soon  riddled  their  frail  fortification  of  baggage  waggons, 
"and  made  the  beef  and  the  bacon,  the  bread  and  the  blankets 
"  fly  about  their  ears,  until  Munzer  and  fifty  thousand  of  his  fol- 
"  lowers  lay  weltering  in  their  blood.  But  stop;  did  I  say  that 
'•  Munzer  was  killed?  No,  the  unhappy  man  escaped  the  gen- 
*'  eral  slaughter,  and  took  care  to  hide  himself  where  no  Presi- 
"  dent  of  a  College  or  Dignitary  of  the  Church  could  easily 
"  find  him.'"'  [During  this  address  and  some  others,  the  audi- 
ence laughed  at  my  expense.  3 

SIXTH  DAY. 

"  I  arose."  "Mr.  Pedobaptist,  conscious  of  his  own  incom- 
^'  petency  to  make  a  single  criticism,  or  to  defend  one  of  his 
"  own,  shrewdly  considered  if  he  could  work  upon  my  modesty! 
"  [lovely  virtue!]  so  as  to  make  me  ashamed  to  even  mention  a 
"  Greek  v/ord,  he  would  then  escape  exposure,  for  I  am  told  he 
"has  affected  to  be  a  very  profound  linguist  even  in  this  very 
"place,  and  on  a  certain  occasion  defamed  the  illiterate  Bap- 
"tists.  But  the  fact  is  this,  Mr.  Pedobaptist  is  unacquainted 
*'  with  Greek,  and  I  now  say  he  cannot,  in  my  opinion,  read  one 
"  chapter  in  the  septuagint,  if  his  life  depended  on  it.  Here  it 
"  lies  before  me,  and  he  can  easily  have  an  opportunity  of  con- 
"  vincing  both  you  and  me  that  I  am  mistaken."     "  I  verily  be- 

(c)This  is  a  tolerably  exact  report  of  what  was  said  on  the  5th  topic  in 
Washingtoa. 


145 

'•  lieve  that  he  cannot  repeat  five  verses  of  the  Old  or  New  Tes- 
•"  tament  by  memory."''  "  It  will  be  necessary  here  to  observe 
"  that  during  the  course  of  this  day  some  arguments  were  oft'er- 
"  ed  by  myself  in  proof  of  the  proposition,  '  that  infant  sprink- 
<*  ling  is  injurious  to  the  well  being  of  society,  i-eligious  and  po- 
*'litical."  One  of  the  audience  gave  a  very  correct  miniature 
of  my  arguments  on  this  topic,  by  observing  that  I  had  charged 
Pedobaptism  with  the  guilt  of  every  sin  that  had  ever  been  com- 
mitted by  our  race,  except  one,  and  that  was  the  first'  sin  of  Ad- 
am. I  could  inform  him  that  this  was  omitted  merely  through 
inadvertency. 

During  the  several  speeches  of  my  Pedobaptist  Opponent  on 
this  day,  he  was  not  satisfied  with  noticing  my  accusations  only, 
but  he  answered  those  of  Robinson  and  other  writers  also.  He 
shewed  that  Pedobaptism  had  been  accused  of  pride,  superstition 
and  innovation;  of  will-worship  and  ignorance;  Latitudinarian- 
ism  and  schism;  of  deceit,  indecency  and  debauchery;  stubborn- 
ness. Popery  and  Judaism;  of  blasphemy  and  rebellion;  robbery 
and  assassination;  usurpation,  tyranny  and  persecution.  In  con- 
sidering these  heads  distinctly,  he  sometimes  appeared  to  turn, 
the  tables  upon  his  Accusers.  The  audience  gave  visible,  and 
sometimes  audible  evidence  that  they  thought  Robinson  and  my- 
self guilty  of  bearing  false  witness  against  our  neighbour.  But 
what  vexed  me  most  of  all  was,  that  while  they  were  entertain- 
ed at  my  expense,  my  Opponent,  with  Puritanical  gravity,  en- 
deavoured to  reduce  them  to  a  charitable,  serious  and  devout 
frame  of  mind.     But  I  gave  it  an  ingenious  turn  for  all. 

*'  I  replied."  "  If  Mr.  Pedobaptist  subjects  himself  to  your 
*'  smiles  and  provokes  your  risibility,  I  cannot  see  why  he  should 
*'  blame  youj  nor  do  I  see  any  propriety  in  his  exhorting  you  to 
*' assume  a  sanctified  appearance,  and  a  prayerful  countenance, 
"  while  he  manages  this  discussion  in  this  singular  way.  We 
*'know  there  is  a  canting  tone  and  a  sorrowful  countenance 
'*  much  practised  by  those  who  are  most  ignorant  of  the  genius 
"  of  Christianity.  We  do  not  plead  the  cause  of  levity  nor  of 
**  laughter,  but  we  knew  that  there  was  nothing  more  obnoxious, 
'*to  me  reproof  of  Him,  who  was  most  certainly  the  most  de- 
*'  vout,  than  the  whining  sorrowful  tone,  and  the  sanctified  ex- 
*'  terior  of  those  devotees,  once  called  Pharisees,  but  which  is 
"  now  greatly  extolled  by  many  who  inveigh  against  Pharisaism, 
"  A  cheerful  countenance  and  a  pure  conscience  are  necessari- 
*'ly  allied,  but  a  good  conscience  and  sighs  and  groans,  and  a 
*'  dejected  prolonged  face,  [long  faces,  dirty  Pharisaical  faces, 
"  sanctified  sighs,  pious  sobs  and  holy  groans,]  are  very  incom- 
*'  patible  and  irreconcilable."  [This  speech  stopped  the  laugh - 
"ing.] 

(d)This  last  sentence  is  taken  from  Mr.  Lowry's  notes.  Mr.  Campbell's  re- 
port  of  it  in  a  note,  p.  335,  is  incorrect. 

u 


146 

SEVENTH  DAY. 

I 
•*  Met  according  to  adjournmentj"  that  is,  after  I  had  come 
an  hour  too  latei 

My  Pedobaptist  Opponent  remarked  that  the  challenge  charg- 
ed the  evils  enumerated  in  the  foregoing  Topic  (the  6th)  upon 
**  infant  sprinkling,"  He  had  shewn  that  Pedobaptism  was  not 
justly  chargeable  with  those  evils  in  relation  to  the  subject:  and 
he  would  now  endeavour,  in  discussing  the  7th  Topic,  to  shew 
that  their  baptism  is  not  injurious  to  society,  in  respect  of  the 
mode,  sprinkling,  pouring  or  washing.  He  observed  that  asper- 
sion, affusion,,  ablution  and  immersion  were  technical  terms  in 
medicine  as  well  as  in  divinity;  that  they  were  allowed  to  differ 
very  much  from  each  other  in  their  effects  upon  the  huaian  body, 
and  that  they  were  esteemed  safe  or  not,  according  to  the  pres- 
ent state  of  the  patient,  and  his  constitution  and  habits.  He 
asked  the  question,  "  Is  submersion  good  for  all  diseases,  all 
constitutions,  educations  and  habits.^  Let  any  Physician  an- 
SAver."  He  said  that  many  Baptists  denied  that  any  person  was 
ever  injured  by  receiving  the  ordinance  in  their  mode:  yet  the 
*ame  persons  would  allow  that  the  administrators  might  suffer 
in  health;  of  which  he  had  known  an  instance,  in  a  robust  min- 
ister who  was  prevented  from  preaching  in  the  evening  by  going 
into  the  water  to  baptize  in  the  afternoon. 

*'I  then  arose:"  biit  I  could  hardly  arise,  I  was  so  full  of  the 

witty  reply  which  I  was  going  to  make.     That  I  had  reason  for 

gigling  as  I  did,  no  person  who  has  heard  or  read  my  speech  can 

deny.     "  I  observed,  that  Benjamin  Franklin,    when   Minister 

'  in    Paris,    dined   with   a  number  of  French  and    American 

'  gentlemen.      A  learned   French   Abbe  at  dinner  entertain- 

'  ed  the  company  with  a  very  learned  disquisition  on  the  de- 

'  teriorating  influence  of  the  American  climate  on  the  bodies 

*  of  all  animals.  That  the  human  body  diminished  in  size  and 
'  energy,  and  that  even  the  mind  itself  shared  in  the  general 
'  deterioration.  Dr.  Franklin  made  no  reply;  but  after  dinner 
'  told  the  company  with  what  pleasure  he  had  heard  the  learned 
'disquisitions  of  the  Philosopher:  he  moved  that  the  company 
'  be  divided,  observing  that  the  fairest  way  of  testing  the  cor-» 
'  rectness  of  the  learned  Abbe's  theory,  was  to  place  all  the  A- 

*  mericans  on  one  side  the  room,  and  the  French  on  the  oth- 
'  er.     The  motion  was  carried:  and  behold  a  company  of  little 

*  swarthy  insignificant  Frenchmen  on  the  one  side,  and  a  row  of 
'  little  giants  on  the  other.  Aye,  says  the  Dr.  see  here  is  a 
'  striking  proof  of  the  correctness  of  your  theory!!  Now  let 
'  us  take  the  philosopher's  way  of  testing  the   correctness  of 

*  the  theory  of  my  Opponet.  There  sits  on  the  bench  a  Baptist 
'  and  a  Pedobaptist  teacher,  both  well  advanced  in  years;  the 
'  former  has,  we  are  told,  immersed  more  persons  than  any 
'  oth^r  person  of  the  same  age  in  the  state,  or  perhaps  in  the 


147 

*«*  United  States^  the  other  from  his  venerable  age,  may  be  si>^- 
<*  posed  to  have  sprinkled  a  great  many  infants.  Now  see  the 
*'  pernicious  tendency  of  immersion  on  the  Baptist,  and  the  hap- 
*' py  influence  of  sprinkling  upon  the  Pedobaptists. "  Through- 
out the  whole  discussion  there  was  not  so  happy  a  hit  as  the  above. 
Its  claims  to  the  character  of  real  wit  have  never  yet,  to  my 
knowledge,  been  disputed.  A  proof  of  this  is,  that  my  hearty 
chuckling  did  not  keep  the  audience  from  laughing.  Bishop 
Tricentiman  was  delighted,  and  even  "  the  Rev.  Rod"  smiled 
and  made  me  a  polite  bow. 

My  Pedobaptist  Opponent  observed  that  the  challenge  accused 
infant  sprinkling  of  beinginjurious  to  society.  "  This"  said  he, 
*'  embraced  our  practice,  as  to  the  subject  and  the  mode,  the 
*'  baptism  of  infants,  and  baptism  by  sprinkling  or  any  mode 
*'  short  of  submersion.  Our  practice  as  to  the  subject  was  de- 
*'  fended  on  yesterday,  from  twenty  distinct  and  important 
*'  criminations.  Not  one  of  them  has  been  urged  against  our 
*'  mode  5  nor  have  any  new  charges  been  made  out  against  it, 
*'  unless  my  Opponent's  last  speech  may  be  considered  as  charg- 
*' ing  it  with  injuring  the  health  of  the  Administrator,  as  oiir 
*'  Moderator  is  a  sickly  man,  while  he  would  make  you  believe 
*'  that  baptism  by  immersion  in  a  river  or  creek  promotes  the 
*'  health  and  growth  of  the  Administrator,  because  the  Baptist 
*'  Moderator  who  has  done  much  of  this  service,  weighs  300  lbs. 
*'  In  regard  of  the  self-complacency  with  which  the  compliment 
"  was  uttered  by  my  Opponent  and  received  by  his  weighty 
**  friend,  I  would  observe  that  Goliah's  weight  was  worth  less 
*'than  David's  sling,  and  that  this  stripling  was  preferred  to 
*'  Saul  who  was  a  head  and  shoulders  above  the  people.  Be- 
♦*  sides,  it  would  be  every  whit  as  reasonable  to  attribute  Saul's 
*'  eiiormous  size  to  his  hiding  among  the  stuff  on  a  certain  occa- 
*'  sion,  as  to  attribute  the  size  of  our  weighty  Moderator  to  his 
*'  wading  in  the  water.  If  this  were  true,  and  the  common 
*'  sense  of  the  public  could  be  made  to  believe  it,  the  sick  would 
*'  become  almost  amphibious,  and  would  let  their  nurses,  apothe- 
*'  caries  and  physicians  seek  another  way  of  living.  If  it  be 
*'  true  that  dipping  the  fingers  into  water,  for  the  purpose  of 
*'  baptizing  infants,  has  ruined  the  health  of  our  Pedobaptist 
"  Moderator,  then  our  three  hundred  pounder  must  have  careful- 
"  ly  avoided  the  daily  washing  of  his  hands'  and  face.  To  say 
*'  that  his  standing  in  three-feet  water  a  few  hours  every  month 
"  has  preserved  him  from  the  effects  of  ordinary  partial  ablution, 
*'  would  be  as  reasonable  as  to  affirm  that  Alexander's  rushing 
*'  into  the  river  Cydnus  was  the  means  of  saving  him  from  dying 
"by  the  many  sprinklings  of  water  and  blood  to  which  he  had 
"  been  subject.  It  is  a  fact  of  historical  record,  and  it  is  the  be- 
"  lief  of  the  Medical  Faculty  ancient  and  modern,  that  his  go- 
"  ing  into  the  water  on  that  occasion  was  extremely  near  taking 
"the  life  of  that  hardy  warrior.  Through  the  providence  of 
*'  God,  he  recovered:  and  so  did  the  Baptist  preacher  mentioned. 


148 

"  in  my  former  speech,  recover  from  the  violent  cold  caught  hf 
"going  into  the  water  on  the  Sabbath  afternoon;  and  since  his 
"  recovery  he  is  very  tall  and  very  fat  as  he  was  before  he  turned 
*'  Baptist.  But  this  argues  nothing  for  standing  in  waist-deep 
*'  water,  an  hour  or  two  at  a  time,  in  summer  and  in  winter.  A. 
"  strong  constitution  may  endure  the  frequent  repetition  of  such 
"  hardships,  and  yet  become  as  fat  as  an  ox,  [looking  at  Bishop 
"  Tricentiman]  yet  a  delicate  frame  might  sink  under  one  such 
"experiment."  When  my  Opponent,  with  his  long  Pharisai- 
cal face,  looked  at  the  Bishop,  the  people  also  looked  and  laugh- 
ed, according  to  tlie  license  which  I  had  given  to  this  healthful 
exercise.  I  confess  it  would  have  pleased  me  better  if  they  had 
laughed  at  some  other  time;  not  on  my  own  account  so  much  as 
that  of  the  Bishop,  who  sate  very  uneasy,  and  seemed  as  if  he 
would  like  to  hide  his  carcase,  with  that-of  the  Royal  Benjamite, 
among  the  stuff".  But  he  soon  plucked  up  courage,  and  whisper- 
ed a  while  in  great  haste,  with  the  President.  It  is  said  that,  in- 
stead, of  making  a  polite  bow  as  the  other  Moderator  had  done 
to  me,  he  wished  the  Bench  to  rebuke  the  speaker:  but  the  presi- 
dent persuaded  him  to  be  patient  a  little  longer  and  the  discus- 
sion would  close.  My  Pedobaptist  opponent  then  proceeded  to 
shew  that  the  most  eminent  advocates  of  submersion,  were  also 
advocates  for  sometimes  warming  the  water,  confessing  that  the 
health  of  the  subject  as  well  as  the  administrator  might  suffier  in 
the  usual  way.  He  was  himself  acquainted  with  a  case  of  sick- 
ness occasioned  by  being  baptized  in  this  way;  his  friends  knew 
other  similar  cases.  He  had  in  his  hand  a  paper  published  in  the 
town  where  the  debate  occurred,  stating  a  case  of  a  woman  who 
lately  died  in  the  water,  in  the  hands  of  the  Minister.  He  pro- 
duced other  well  authenticated  cases  of  death  occasioned  by  im- 
prudent submersions.  As  far  as  sickness  and  death  were  the 
effect  of  immersion,  he  though^;  our  mode  injurious  to  society; 
but  he  could  not  see  any  valid  objection  against  sprinkling  as  in- 
jurious. After  this  he  considered  himself  as  acquitted  from  the 
accusations  of  the  challenge  in  every  point;  and  as  I  had  renew- 
ed my  challenge  with  such  alterations  as  would  forever  secure 
me  from  another  such  troublesome  affair,  he  took  the  liberty  of 
publishing  a  similar  challenge,  for  the  sake  of  being  in  fashion. 
The  conditions  of  it,  he  said,  were  two.  1.  The  man  who  en- 
counters him  must  be  unanimously  chosen  by  an  Association  in 
the  interior  woi'ld,  which  Captain  Symms  proposes  to  visit.  2. 
The  Moderator  chosen  by  my  opponent  must  be  one  imported 
from  Holland,  who  has  been  dipping  and  dipping  and  dipping, 
until  he  shall  weigh  at  least  five  hundred  weight.  With  this, 
the  speaker  and  the  audience  ga^'e  another  look  at  Bishop  Tri- 
centiman,  whose  tallow  was  becoming  very  cheap;  but  as  the  oth- 
er Moi'erators  were  not  sensitive  enough  to  notice  every  thing, 
and  as  I  had  introduced  the  subject  of  his  corpulency  to  raise  a 
laugh  against  "  the  Rev.  Rod,"  which  greatly  delighted  the 
Bishop,,  he  had  now  to  grin  and  bear  when  the  laugh  was  turned 
against  him.     My  opponent  then  gave  a  1-o-n-g  recapitulation  of 


149 

liis  seven  topics,  with  all  their  branches  and  propositions,  points 
and  particulars. 

"I  rejoined."  "I  was  pledged  to  affirm  and  he  to  deny.  Henot- 
*'  withstanding  affirms  and  leaves  me  wirhout.  an  opponent  in  strict 
"  propriety. -On  his  plan  of  managing  this  discussion,  I  could  make 
*'  a  boy  of  sixteen  dispute  with  the  Lord  Archbishop  of  Canterbury. 
*'  I  would  tell  him  to  collect  as  much  matter  as  would  require  ma- 
*'  ny  days  reading;  and  to  have  it  rendered  so  familiar,  that  he  could 
*'  read  it  very  fluently,  looking  oft"  now  and  then,  and  making  a  few 
*' extempore  remarks.  I  would  charge  him  never  formally  to 
"attempt  to  reply  to  his  Lordship,  but  when  his  Lordship, 
*'  had  done  speaking  to  go  on  and  read  another  half  hour,  and  if 
"his  Lordship  should  attack  and  discomfit  his  arguments,  never 
"  to  appear  to  feel  it ;  never  to  attempt  to  defend  his  positions, 
"but  to  pursue  his  notes  :  taking  care,  however,  in  the  course 
"  of  his  reading,  to  say  any  thing  that  might  occur  to  his  mind 
"as  very  pert:  [like  my  story  of  Dr.  Franklin  and  the  French 
"  Abbe  ;j  in  the  mean  time  never  venturing  to  lose  sight  of  his 
**  manuscript.  In  this  way  his  Lordship  might  become  wearied, 
*'  [as  my  Lordship  most  assuredly  is,]  and  might  not  be  able  to 
"  speak  so  many  days  as  he  could  read  ;  and  if  he  should  only 
"  succeed  in  continuing  longer  than  his  Opponent,  the  majority 
*'  would  think  he  had  the  best  of  the  argument ;  at  all  events, 
"  all  would  say,  if  his  Lordship  should  excel,  he  had  his  hands 
"full,  and  had  little  to  boast  of."  Alter  this  compliment  to  the 
judgment  of  the  majority,  (which  I  rightly  apprehended  would 
be  against  me,)  I  recapitulated  my  challenges  and  triumphs  as 
given  above,  and  gave  some  important  hints,  such  as  I  thought 
suitable  to  close  v/ith.  My  Pedobaptist  Opponent  arose  to  re- 
ply. I  objected  to  his  right  so  to  do.  He  referred  it  to  the 
Bench.  They  decided  in  his  favour.  The  President  who  had 
before  intended  to  sit  no  longer  than  that  evening,  told  the  par- 
ties that  he  would  sit  until  Saturday  night,  (three  days  longer,) 
if  they  required  it.  My  Opponent,  with  an  appalling  ardour, 
observed  that  he  would  love  him  as  long  as  he  lived,  for  such  a 
declaration.  Knowing  that  he  had  abridged  his  matter  very- 
much,  and  fearing  that  I  might  be  kept  on  the  rack  during  the 
rest  of  the  week,  I  let  him  speak  again  ;  after  which, 

"I  then  just  observed."  '  Mr  Pedobaptist  is  the  most  per- 
*  verse  mortal  that  I  ever  had  any  thing  to  do  with. ' 

"  So  ended  the  Discussion." 

Note.  "  As  T  conceive  myself  on  clear  ground  with  the  Pe- 
"dobaptist  world,  as  having  explored  all  the  systems  of  infant 
"  baptism  hitherto  exhibited,  I  would  inform  the  public,  that, 
"  unless  some  new  ground  is  taken,  I  will  promise  to  review  an- 
'^  nually  all  the  new  works  published  on  this  question,  and  sell 
"  the  annual  review  for  ISi  Cents." 


£60 
No.  20. 

NOTICE. 


It  was  the  Author's  original  intention  to  publish  these  papers 
with  the  argument,  when  it  should  have  been  prepared  for  the 
press.  The  plan  of  making  them  a  separate  pamphlet  to  precede 
the  argument  was  lately  suggested  by  a  friend.  The  latter  work 
may  yet  be  delayed  many  months.  The  materials  are  full,  and 
very  conveniently  digested,  in  the  brief :  yet  sickness  and  weak- 
ness and  many  engagements  make  the  draft  for  the  press  goon 
very  slowly.  It  shall  be  finished  as  soon  as  Providence  will  per- 
mit. May  God  expose  imposture,  and  bless  his  people  with 
truth  and  holines,  for  Christ's  sake. 


INDEX, 

No.  Pa»6 

1.  The  Challenge,  by  Mr.  Campbell,  -  -  -  -         12 

2.  The  Challenge  accepted  by  Mr.  M'Calla,             -  -  -         15 
3 — 12.     The  subsequent  corresponce  by  the  parties,  -  17 — 36 

13.  On  facts  and  on  the  truth  of  Mr .  CampbelFs  Report,      -  -         40 

14.  On  the  truth  and  genuineness  of  Mr.  Campbell's  Report,  -         48 

15.  The  Campbellisms,  transpositions,  supplements,  interpolations, 

suppressions,  and  alterations  of  Mr.  Campbell's  Report ;  with 
some  notice  of  Dr  James  Fishback,  a  Pelagian  Baptist,  gone  all 
the  way  to  Boston  to  put  down  the  Unitarians ! !  -  -         57 

16.  Mr.  Campbell's  religious  character,  by  Mr.  Greatrake,   a  pious 

Baptist  preacher  of  his  own  neighbourhood,       -  -  -         73 

17.  The  religious  character  of  the  parties,  in  which  the  one  cent  ver- 

dict is  discussed,  ......       IQI 

18.  Mr.  Campbell's  literary  and  Polemical  character,  with  a  word  up- 

on the  question  who  gained  the  victory  in  the  debate  i*  -       115 

19.  New  Report  of  a  debate  on  Baptism,  containing  specimens  of  Mr. 

Campbell's  eloquence,  and  a  syllabus  of  his  Antagonist's  argu- 
ment,   --..-.-.       129- 

20.  Notice  of  W.  L.  M'Calla's  fnll  argument,  now  m  hands,  to  be 

published,  (God  willing)  in  a  few  months,        -  -  -      15§ 


« 


